We are living in a time where it’s very exciting to be a creationist! Research has been turning up enormous amounts of data to learn from. But we are living in a time where a scientist can publish a peer-reviewed paper and then get terminated shortly thereafter that paper gets published because it casts doubt on Darwinian evolution.
Evolutionists never looked for soft tissue in ancient fossils for most of the theory’s existence because soft tissue degrades quickly. But in 2005, when Dr. Mary Schweitzer first demonstrated the existence of soft tissue which she found by accident, she couldn’t believe her eyes because it was assumed to be 65 million years old! Evolutionists had to revise and then invoke a miracle in evolution. So scientists are now conducting research to find more soft tissue and it’s turning up all over the place!
The peer-review paper that was written by Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson, consisted of a fossil assumed to be 65 million years old which is a horn from a Triceratops horridus specimen. The researchers wanted to know if there was any soft tissue contained in this fossil, so they eliminated all the hard stuff by soaking the fossil for a month in a mild acid in order to if there was anything soft inside.
What they discovered was quite exciting! Strips of soft tissue. To study it further in more detail, the researchers one being Mark Armitage, put the tissue under a scanning electron microscope which means they can share what they observed. What did they see, you ask. They discovered circular Haversian systems which are compact bone made of cylindrical structures formed by bone cells. Haversian systems are found in many bones of most mammals and some bird, reptile, and amphibian species.
This is quite amazing, while still using the microscope they looked in the canals and the researchers (authors of the peer-review paper) noticed the tissues were filled with structures which strongly resemble red blood cells! It’s incredible that a bone cell can last thousands of years, but 65 million years? No! While it’s true evolutionists will come up with some sort of sort story which is not observable, on how bone cells can be preserved over millions of years, this new discovery argues against evolutionists with their assumptions of the Hell Creek Formation where this fossil originally came from being millions of years old using the scientific method rather than using total faith in evolutionary theory. How much harder is it to believe in evolution where cells can be preserved for millions of years without being mineralized?.
Here is the abstract of the paper…
“Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching.”
“Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.”
Was Mark Armitage’s termination regrettable, but a vital move by the University in order to maintain consensus of scientists?
New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism 
Seems he was fired for the paper: http://logosresearchassociates.org/week-1/
Not surprising.
Creation.com is also claiming religious discrimination: http://creation.com/mark-h-armitage
I agree, because Mark’s paper did not invoke the standard, “this is unexpected, but we are learning more about evolution” conclusions. Because “the standard” has a mission to preserve evolution not follow where the evidence leads and when you follow where the evidence leads and make it known to the public if you are a scientist who works for a University, you get fired!
Do you have access to the paper?
There is very little news about this situation, and Michael’s post is completely unhelpful., So I know none of the circumstances of the firing.
Armitage is not alone in publishing this type of data.. Since about 2006, there have been at least a dozen refereed papers reporting anomalously high ages for soft tissue in fossils, some of them from pre-KT era.
Yet no one else has lost a position over such a paper. So the question is: Why did Armitage alone get fired? There must have been something else.
Must have or could have?
Olorin said, “Armitage is not alone in publishing this type of data.. Since about 2006, there have been at least a dozen refereed papers reporting anomalously high ages for soft tissue in fossils, some of them from pre-KT era.”
Your correct, Armitage is not alone as I stated in my post. There is little news because his termination was very recent, once the lawsuit is filed, more details will come to light. The university is quiet so far on his termination.
“Yet no one else has lost a position over such a paper. So the question is: Why did Armitage alone get fired? There must have been something else.”
Schweitzer who discovered soft tissues in T-Rex were spherical structures which were red blood cells which was supposed to be 65 million years old. There was opposition from her peers, they claimed the tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.
Schweitzer and others who you have quoted were not fired because they are not creationists like Armitage is! That’s a big difference right there, on how a secular university would react. You have a creationist who works at a University conducting a scientific experiment using a microscope and mild acid on an ancient fossil looking for soft tissue. Unlike Schweitzer and others, he didn’t try and fit the evidence into millions of years by calling it a “gap” for future stories to be created on how a miracle in evolution could have happened. Rather, he used the findings as strong direct evidence for a young earth!
Think about it, if you are such a militant evolutionist in charge of a university, and there is a creationist on your staff who makes a discovery that is not favorable towards evolution. Ok you can live with that because of other discoveries but worse of all, his conclusion is not favorable towards evolution! Would you consider that person using the University to promote creationism? And if so, would you have fired him for that paper?
I think he was fired because the university didn’t want a creationist making discoveries that get published in a scientific journal which falsify evolution’s old earth assumptions while making conclusions that side with creationism! Rather they want to have an evolutionist using language along these lines…”evolution surprises” or “unexpected” or “new discovery requires a new way to look at evolution” or in other words, they need to come up with a story later on, that leads back to evolution, not away from it so it doesn’t look like they are promoting creationism which is what they are fighting against. The university did not want future experiments conducted by Armitage or follows ups on this one, to have any connection with them whatsoever!
Ah, so you think there was some reason other than the data in the paper itself that caused the firing.
Upon what evidence do you base this opinion?
And why hasn’t the Discovery Institute raised a martyr’s flag over Armitage? Maybe they think there is something rotten in the state of Denmark here….
Also, I have been looking for the nature of Armitage’s link to U. Cal. Northridge, whence he was supposedly fired. I cannot find that any relationship had ever existed.
Armitage’s education is a BS in Education. He has a fake MS from the unaccredited ICR graduate school. He has been associated with several small Christian colleges, and is said to be pursuing a PhD in something or other at Liberty U.
These are not even close to the CV that U Cal would require for any faculty or teaching position.
Was gibt hier? Why do all the creationist sites proclaim that Armitage was fired from (an unspecified post) U Cal Northridge, an actual research institution with national standing?
Inquiring minds want to know.
How do you know that the ICR was not accredited at the time that he got his MS?
From http://creation.com/mark-h-armitage:
Do you have information that he was not fired?
No. I had no knowledge of his having any position at all at UCal.
So in other words, his position at U Cal was as a technician who understands how to run and fix electron microscopes. Like a machinist or an x-ray tech. Not a professional or teaching or research wonk.
One might guess, then, that he could have been fired for misusing UCal’s name in or for his paper when he had no academic connection with them
.
As to ICR’s accreditation, they were never accredited o a national basis, but only in California. When they moved to Texas, the Texas knifed them in the back by refusing to grant accreditation they had been sot of promised after giving up their fraudulently obtained California charter. The AAU has never accepted their accreditation at any time…
Is that how it works? If so, then why cry religious discrimination? That would be setting up oneself for infamy.
On what basis can you say that?
Since when was the AAU’s views pertinent to state accreditation?
Nobody but the creationists are crying discrimination. Paranoid. I guess. N o body else is crying anything.
I don’t have my sources handy, but the story of ICR’s obtaining regional accreditation from the California Board was fraught with misleading claims and falsehoods.
AAU accredits for most major universities nationally. State boards may do as they wish, but no university of any standing will pay any attention to them. UCal could in theory disregard either accreditation, but they will follow AAU’s, in order to be able to transfer credits to or from another AAU university.
Why not wait till more information is out instead of making claims which may turn out to be incorrect?
The claim is accurate as of now.
It may change, but it’s been a while now, and no more hard info has become available. This seems strange n itself,
Armitage on Bob Enyart Live: http://kgov.com/Mark-Armitage-dinosaur-soft-tissue
I said I’m looking for hard info. Not creo-twaddle, there’s plenty of that.
If that be the case, why are you peddling evo-twaddle micro-evolution = macro-evolution?
Ah. Another non sequitur from the creo bag.. Or was that an ad hominem, or maybe an ad nauseam.
You’re comedic. I would gather from your sentence that you don’t even know what is a fallacy. That would explain why you delight in making them.
Do you feel smug enough yet in your dark corner?
Hardly, the one in the dark corner feeling smug would be you.
Maybe, but what about those 484,000 research scientists in the life sciences, who also inhabit my corner..
Appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum.
Good to see that you can actually diversify your fallacies.
Aye, argumentum ad scientiam populum.
Still no hard news on Armitage. Sounds like a total fizzle.
If you are so concerned, contact him personally.
Soft Tissues in Triceratops Horn
http://creation.com/mark-h-armitage
He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University.
http://kgov.com/Mark-Armitage-dinosaur-soft-tissue
Radio interview with Mark Armitage [August 26, 2013]
http://brokenroadradio.com/morning-show-august-26-2013-click-here-to-reveal-links
Expelled Professor and Microscopist Mark Armitage Responds to his Critics
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellectual-freedom/expelled-professor-mark-armitage-responds-to-his-critics
All of you need to read the book Slaughter of the Dissidents, on Amazon etc. I goes into detail on this and other topics.
I read the entire paper to which I have access through my university. No where in the paper does Armitage claim that the fossil supports a young earth theory. He merely forwards his idea that the soft tissue structures observed were not the product of biofilm remnants but seem more likely to be fossilized original soft tissue. No where in the paper is it asserted that this fossilized soft tissue came from an animal that existed thousands of years ago, millions of years ago or yesterday. It is silent on the topic entirely.
Hello Inis Magrath
You say, “No where in the paper does Armitage claim that the fossil supports a young earth theory. He merely forwards his idea that the soft tissue structures observed were not the product of biofilm remnants but seem more likely to be fossilized original soft tissue. No where in the paper is it asserted that this fossilized soft tissue came from an animal that existed thousands of years ago, millions of years ago or yesterday. It is silent on the topic entirely.”
Armitage or any other scientist are forbidden to mention any support for a young earth in a research paper conducted at a government University but do you require such a thing in order to come to a conclusion? Here again is what I wrote before the revision which basically says the same…”The peer-review paper that was published by Mark Armitage, consisted of a fossil assumed to be 65 million years old…” In the media, it’s estimated as 68 million years old in the evolutionary time frame.
“The discovery is the latest in several recent – and controversial – soft tissue finds by archaeologists…”
The article as well as evolutionists turned to “iron” as the explanation for preserving soft tissues, but lab experiments conducted with iron and soft tissue does not confirm such a proposal.
Schweitzer who was the first evolutionist to discover soft tissue back in 2005 writes…
“They soaked one group of (ostrich) blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.”
Iron is unable to form covalent cross-links between protein chains like formaldehyde does. By the way, formaldehyde is used to slowdown decomposition rather than stop it. DNA and proteins will eventually succumb to ordinary chemistry. Millions of years of preservation of organic material is not scientific!
You get more of a direct idea on how old those fossils are according to evolutionists by reading the University’s article…