Mark Armitage vs California State University

When Mary Schweitzer first discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex back in 2005, she encountered much criticism but later on her discovery was vindicated. Unlike Mark Armitage who got fired in 2014 from the University for his research which was published in a peer-preview paper which went international.

“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.” 

How many creationists discover soft tissues in fossils and publish their findings in secular peer-review papers? The firing of Mark Armitage was on the basis of religious discrimination which was groundbreaking without a doubt in order to set an example for future creation scientists who are thinking of publishing their findings while working for a University as a creationist. I will get more into his case in a moment. I would like to introduce Mark to those who are unaware of him as well as reminding those on who he is.

Mark Armitage  was a microscopy laboratory director at the University of California which duties included teaching students on how to use very complex equipment. He also has 30 publications to his credit. It was 2012 when he made a stunning discovery. In a horn of a  Triceratops horridus specimen assumed to be 65 million years old in the framework of evolution, not reality. The horn was 48 inches long which contained soft tissue that was about to become bone and what is really interesting it was discovered in the presence of bacteria, insects, and plant material. Organic material degrades very rapidly especially when you have bacteria, and insects present. This is a fact!  Mark goes into great detail on his amazing discovery in the video below…

On to Mark Armitage’s case, the paper in question which leads to his firing at the University was first published in American Laboratory magazine in that same year when he made the discovery then in 2013,  the discovery was published in a peer-reviewed journal called, Acta Histochemica where he made no mention of creationism nor a young earth in his conclusions. It was all about what he had found in the fossil! Yet, not long after that he was fired with some lame excuse that there was a lack of funding to pay for his salary and a need for his services (teaching students on how to use very complex equipment).

Superior Court Judge Dalila Lyons issued in July a tentative ruling against the university’s request for summary judgment. And in October 2016 it was announced that the university settled out of court paying Mark Armitage 15 times more than his annual salary. Apparently, the university had plenty of funds for a huge cash settlement which could have been used for his salary. It was a clear win for Armitage and creationists who pursue jobs in the field of science at universities!

On a side note, here is another video which refutes old earth creationists who have embraced the time frame of evolution (but not evolution itself) on the preservation of soft tissue…

The Opisthotonic Death Pose In Fossils

From tiny to enormous from all over the globe, researchers have discovered these amazing fossils with a similar pattern known as the “opisthotonic death pose” but a question remains with this pose for secular palaeontologists. What caused it?

New Scientist writes…

“When palaeontologists are lucky enough to find a complete dinosaur skeleton – whether it be a tiny Sinosauropteryx or an enormous Apatosaurus – there’s a good chance it will be found with its head thrown backwards and its tail arched upwards – technically known as the opisthotonic death pose. No one is entirely sure why this posture is so common, but Alicia Cutler and colleagues from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, think it all comes down to a dip in the wet stuff.”

This is not entirely accurate, when one rules out a phenomenon, it causes unnecessary mysteries that require a story rather than where the evidence leads. The bias that is being referred to is the rejection of a global flood on earth but without logical inferences. However, scientists have suggested that the phenomenon (global flood) could have happened on another planet like Mars.

Back on earth, Alicia Cutler and her colleagues at Brigham Young University used chickens for dessication and dunking and discovered a drowning effect where they immediately went into the characteristic opisthotonic death pose. This of course is proof of a global flood phenomenon.

In other research news, paleontologist from University of Rhode Island wanted these particular fossils (with the  opisthotonic  death pose) to be buried in a sandstorm rather than drowning but later admitted that these 15 Protoceratops juveniles were rapidly buried in order to be preserved in such great detail.

In PLoS One…“In the fossilized skin samples, the researchers can see not only the animal’s scales, but also imprints of the protein fibers that made up its skin.”

For a century now, researchers have discovered various fossils with a similar pattern not just in certain localities but all over the world that continue to discover these particular fossils that contain the “opisthotonic death pose” and the global flood inference is the best explanation, there is no need of turning it into some sort of cult religion of a secret mystery for future storytelling.

New Dinosaur Forced Into The Evolutionary Framework

Dubbed as a “nasty” and fierce predator who’s size was only 4 foot tall was found in Argentina with an assumed time frame of 230 million years ago, a new study suggests. Eodromaeus, whose name means “dawn runner” is supposed to be revealing new light on the evolution of dinosaurs. When you examine this particular small dinosaur it certainly appears it was well designed animal for running and taking care of itself, but the BBC in it’s report, argued to the contrary, “Even though their descendents may have gone on to great things, neither of the creatures were dominant in their time, and the researchers believe their eventual rise may be down to blind chance, and perhaps some unknown environmental catastrophe.”

Stuff happens with blind chance (as it’s always claim to do), according the BBC which means the interpretation is outrunning the bones. Keep in the mind, the dating method used was a complete assumption. As it states in the journal of science, “A current geologic time scale, which assumes an average rate of sedimentation between radioisotopically dated horizons.”

What if that assumption is inaccurate as a result of human error? The impact of such an error would radically change the story of evolution. Another interesting observation when you look at their chart, there is decreasing diversity over a period of time.  So if we are to assume their long-age interpretation of the formation, the evidence contradicts evolutionary predictions – and their paper is very honest about this particular observation in their data as they admit to it!

“One explanation for the rise of dinosaurs has been that a few key features led gradually to the competitive dominance of dinosaurs.  This view has been overtaken by a hypothesis of noncompetitive replacement, in which their rise is split into two successive episodes of extinction and noncompetitive infilling of vacant ecospace.  In the replacement hypothesis, the earliest dinosaurs are regarded as particularly rare (1 to 3% of terrestrial vertebrates), their abundance and diversity increasing successively at the Carnian-Norian and Triassic-Jurassic boundaries coincident with mass extinction of rhynchosaurs, traversodontid cynodonts, and dicynodonts and later of (noncrocodyliform) crurotarsal archosaurs.”

“In contrast, the fossil record from Ischigualasto indicates that early dinosaurs in the latter half of the Carnian (231 to 228 Ma) were more common and diverse than previously thought, equaling the percentage of dinosaurian genera in the late Norian fauna from the overlying Los Colorados Formation (Fig. 4).  Thus, in terms of taxonomic diversity, dinosaurs did not increase their percentage among terrestrial vertebrates toward the end of the Triassic in southwestern Pangaea.”

They continued on with the disappearance of the other creatures (assuming their timeline) had nothing to do with the rise of dinosaurs: “The disappearance of rhynchosaurs at the Carnian-Norian boundary was not linked to an increase in dinosaur diversity but rather coincided with the local extinction of dinosaurs.” It’s not like the dinosaurs were taking advantage of space vacated by the unlucky ones that had gone extinct, in other words (vacated perhaps due to their lack of Darwinian fitness).

Also, they went on about speculation with increases in the size of the body that was supposed to become something like dominate T-Rex. But Eodromaeus was a well-designed, complex creature with fast legs and grasping claws, which in no way indicates that this animal like the study wants us to believe (because otherwise it would mess up the story of evolution), was inferior to later dinosaurs in terms of complexity and fitness!  Here is what they say about him…

“The discovery of Eodromaeus, the reinterpretation of Eoraptor as a sauropodomorph, and the faunal record of the Ischigualasto Formation provide additional evidence that, by mid Carnian time (~232 Ma), the earliest dinosaurs had already evolved the most functionally important trophic and locomotor features characterizing ornithischians, sauropodomorphs, and theropods.  These attributes are thus unlikely to have functioned as the competitive advantage to account for the dominance of dinosaurs in abundance and diversity in terrestrial habitats some 30 million years later in the earliest Jurassic (~202 Ma).  Eodromaeus increases the range of salient theropod features present in the earliest dinosaurs, and Eoraptor shows that the enlarged naris, basally constricted crowns, and a twisted pollex were present in the earliest sauropodomorphs.”

This suggests that so-called, evolutionary advances must have appeared all at once (hyper-evolution, which is growing in popularity for explanations) in the earliest dinosaurs,  according to their own timeline, with variations on the same theme appearing in future animals. Is this something evolutionists envisioned or Charles Darwin for that matter? Folks, the Bible says creation suddenly was produced by God (not out of nothing by blind chance), creating animals which are designed to vary within their own species. Basically if you take out the interpretation of evolution in the study, that is exactly what the evidence is suggesting!

Soft Tissue From A Dinosaur Verifies Creationism

On of the more highly controversial findings happened in 2005.  Mary Schweitzer and her team found a T-Rex bone which contained soft tissue which contained blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells. Critics inside the box (defenders of biological evolution) said the finding was contaminated.

The latest discovery was reported with great lengths to avoid any possibility of contamination. The paper carefully refrained from using the word “protein” in order to try and avoid any implications of disproving the theory of evolution.

“A controversial finding that protein fragments can be recovered from dinosaur fossils has been replicated for the first time.  Two years ago, Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues stunned the paleontology community when they reported discovering intact protein fragments in a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago.”

“The claim has remained contentious, because proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies.  On page 626, however, Schweitzer and colleagues report finding an even larger number of protein fragments from an 80-million-year-old fossil from a duck-billed dinosaur, or hadrosaur, known as Brachylophosaurus canadensis.”

Why would this finding remain so “contentious?” Because protein degrades fairly quickly, so quick in fact, it’s rare to even find proteins in fossils which are hundreds of years old.  Also, various lines of evidence was used to rule out bacterial contamination. This finding blows the lid off of the storytelling that goes on in evolution.   How could a fossil supposedly being 80 million years old still contain soft tissue with proteins? It can’t it’s not physically possible. The new finding also proves the soft tissue found in T Rex in 2005 wasn’t a fluke!

Now those who like to think “inside the box” consider this a gap which needs to eventually be filled with some sort of explanation (story) so it can be fitted into the time frame of an supposedly old earth.

There was also a heavy spin to the report,  the emphasis on the finding wasn’t on the preserved protein found in the fossil but whether or not the dinosaur could be linked to birds. But with appropriate scientific caution, the evidence did in fact point to the confirmation of the hypothesis that the protein fragments were once part of a living dinosaur which verifies creationism!

Dinosaurs In China Were Fossilized During The Flood

Many years ago in 1978, on a hill in the Gobi Desert, there was a Chinese geologist who found something which turned out some many years later, something pretty amazing. The first of the remains were called; Sinornithomimus, meaning “Chinese bird mimic”.

Quite a number of years later, twenty five more dinosaurs were excavated then the location was  mapped with careful precision.  The discovery of the fossilized dinosaurs shows the appearance of a struggle, like they were trying to escape from something, see the picture below…

fossilized skeletons of young dinosaurs

“And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.”

“Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

“All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.” Genesis 7:18-24

Of course this true and unique account of earth’s history wasn’t taken in consideration by the paleontologists who were working hard on this project and it’s explanation. David Varricchio, assistant professor of paleontology admitted that trying to find an explanation in evolutionary terms by confining himself and his team by only using a modern environment is problematic concerning the fossilized dinosaurs.

What surprised the team of paleontologists was the fact that these group of dinosaurs were young, with no adults being present or hatchlings. With the appearance of a struggle as though these dinosaurs were trying escape some sort of catastrophe fits into the creationist model concerning the flood. It’s pretty logical for the adults animals to have fled the area in a panic while leaving the youngsters and the hatchlings behind. Eventually the hatchlings were destroyed by the flood which is why none was found at the site.

Evolutionists claimed the unexpected discovery was something of a “distinctive dinosaur sociality” where adults just let the youngsters alone so they could fend for themselves. This is typical story telling in order to fit the evidence in with the hypothesis of evolution.

The mud thickness in which these young dinosaurs were trapped in represented another challenge to explain away. In uniformitarianism, “the lamination and very thin beds of the intervening unit represent slow deposition under quiet, low-energy conditions and an absence of significant invertebrate or vertebrate bioturbation.”

This particular concept has been tested in laboratory with experiments which has disproved the uniformitarian idea by showing mud readily deposits from flowing water. No doubt, this is more more evidence for a worldwide flood catastrophe rather than uniformitarianism concerning the thickness of the mud!

What becomes even more problematic when trying to fit this discovery into the evolutionary hypothesis, these dinosaurs were found in a desert!

“Through this period the region experienced an increase in overall aridity and a shift from lacustrine [lake] and fluvial [river] Lower Cretaceous facies [rocks] to predominantly aeolian [desert] dune and associated interdune facies in the Upper Cretaceous.”

How did these young dinosaurs get located in the middle of a desert? The animals were fossilized in the Ulansuhai Formation of the Upper Cretaceous which is a desert! And how could these young dinosaurs get trapped into mud so quickly that they were unable to escape in a desert? The only way for dinosaurs to get caught in thick mud, especially in the vast dryness of a desert is with a huge body of flowing water.  Again, the physical evidence points to a worldwide flood, not some sort of story telling based on evolution!