Posted on 10/04/2016 12:52:05 PM PDT by fishtank
Young-Earth Creationist Wins Lawsuit
Oct. 4, 2016
More than three years ago, I wrote about the sad story of Mark Armitage, a gifted scientist who has become an expert in microscopy. In addition to running his own microscope company, he also worked as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge. While on a fossil dig in the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, he discovered a 48-inch Triceratops horn. When he and his colleague soaked it in weak acid to remove the mineral components, they recovered soft, brown tissue.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.drwile.com ...
For some reason, you have decided that I am hostile to this story - I’m not; in fact I’m very interested in this and all other YE-validating discoveries.
All I did was ask a question - all the assumptions were made by you.
Yes, it was excavated from the Hell Creek Formation...
Only raises more questions. Does the Hell Creek run water of fire? Ok, joking.
Yeah, does seem there is a conflict. I am not qualified to say which is right even if I could examine things myself. But as a curious layman I kind of would like to get a feel for how "soft" this tissue is, how intact these cells are, and what exactly were the dating methods for the formation....is it igneous rock where they used radiometric dating techniques? And how certain can they really be on the starting state of the rock in terms of ratios of sister elements in a decay chain...but then I should be working on my actual job atm....
Nicely played
I resemble that remark.
Science isn’t “prove it _at_all_costs_”.
Stratigraphy is unified to a lot of other good science, including physics. Thus, lacking any other corroborating info after a quick Wiki search, my first questions would concern the environment the remains were found in.
I could see the...possibility of this depending on the types of grains in the mineralogy of the matrix, and their alignments.
Though, as noted, for me, more information is necessary.
No, FRiend you misunderstand my point.
Scientists are largely “prove it _at_all_costs_”.
Just read the exposed emails on climate "science" and the fraud commited by evolutionist "scientists."
It is the way of science. Huddle around a popular idea. Close ranks so tightly that new ideas must come from outside your science religion beliefs. When they arise, oppose them violently. Ridicule them. Once you've been thoroughly defeated, accept them.
That’s not science.
And that’s exactly what ICR et al do too.
Who cares? Bring back a genetically engineered animal.
I want to be the first to walk to the local dog park with my leashed, fully grown Triceratops. :-)
Yep.
I started out as a science major (and garnered two awards in the hard sciences). I left for several reasons, one of which was the overwhelming reliance on propaganda and theory (often in that order).
Real science is empirical.
My 7th Grade report was on the Ceratopsians - my favorites.
One of the best questions I’ve heard is, “WHO caused THE
BIG BANG?” -
Grand Junction CO has a life sized, robotic rubberized T-Rex. Kids either love it or scream in fear. Lol.
LOL!
Again, that’s *scientists*!
They lie, hide contradictory evidence, prevent publishing of contrary evidence manipulate data, etc.
Besides it’s not like there’s much to contradict long ages...
Whoops, wait a minute.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.