A Jurassic lack of imagination

pigflyingEvolution is a subject for the true believers of scientism, a religion-like following for those who see science as an absolute truth. As absolute truths don’t exist such things are bound to be riven with controversy, throwing up regular anomalies and arguments. But then again if you are a scientist you are required to swear an oath of allegiance to evolution, it being one of the mainstays of science. When someone found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone the sh*t hit the fan – as they say. It had to be debunked or Darwin and the sub-religion of Darwinism were in for some unwelcome inquiry. The guy featured below not only found the unthinkable but was a scientifically inscrutable Christian to boot. The university not wanting to be unscientific sacked him for being a Christian.

Who wants to be a millionaire?
University settles lawsuit with scientist fired after he found soft tissue in dinosaur bones
August 11, 2017
By Chad Dou — CSUN scientist Mark Armitage found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone, a discovery that throws significant doubt on evolution. Then, two weeks after publishing his findings, he was fired.

Now California State University at Northridge has paid Armitage a six-figure sum to settle his wrongful termination suit based on religious discrimination. While the university admits no wrongdoing, Armitage’s attorney said they feared losing a protracted lawsuit because of a “smoking gun” email that backed the plaintiff’s case.

The case of Armitage is the latest to show the mounting hostility Christians face in academic(s) and other public arenas.

“Soft tissue in dinosaur bones destroys ‘deep time.’ Dinosaur bones cannot be old if they’re full of soft tissue,” Armitage said in a YouTube video. “Deep time is the linchpin of evolution. If you don’t have deep time, you don’t have evolution. The whole discussion of evolution ends if you show that the earth is young. You can just erase evolution off the whiteboard because of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.” Read it all here:

Note: Some don’t understand, you don’t need to be Christian to deny evolution. You don’t need to be an (upper case) Creationist to think for yourself.

“Soft Tissue” in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
Editor’s Note: Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made worldwide headlines in 2005 for announcing that she had discovered soft tissue preserved in 65 million year old dinosaur fossils. Those who deny the scientific evidence for the old age of the earth have attempted to leverage this discovery to cast doubt on dating methods. But that is a misrepresentation of her findings. Scott Buchanan has meticulously poured through the details of Schweitzer’s work and presented it on the blog, Letters to Creationists. He gives us here a summary of the issues. See also our interview with Schweitzer herself.
Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made a near perfect scientific case for preservation of soft tissue with iron rich haemoglobin, but refused to look at the alternatives. She refused because she is a scientist indoctrinated and job dependant on preserving the flawed ideas of evolution and ‘deep time’.

rockdateFossil Dating
Fossils cannot be dated by radiometric or any other method because they are found in sedimentary rocks (which cannot be dated because they are made-up of various rocks of differing ages), and so there is no known method for dating fossils. However when it comes to determining the age of a particular rock formation the fossil age always wins – rocks are dated by the age of the fossils they contain – that cannot be dated. Circular arguments like this appear throughout science.

Radiometric Dating is unreliable:
See: More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
How Old Is That Fossil (in the layer)?

One of the most common of dinosaur anomalies is human-like footprints found alongside, inside or below dinosaur-like footprints in rocks that predate humans – quite common. Others are apparent human-made artefacts in rocks with dinosaur fossils. But science has never been good at giving-up a good theory in the face of evidence, so they invented debunking, explaining away and hand waving. The implication being that scientists tell the truth and we plebs are idiots or liars; a kind of self confidence destroying tactic.

It would have been simpler had the original scientific narrative said it is possible some dinosaurs survived to the present day. But they were according to the scientific tale, wiped-out 65 million years ago – completely, to maintain the myth of evolution. Things became serious when the world and his wife were finding soft tissue in all manner of dinosaur bones, it had to be explained away with a good story.

Explaining it away
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur’s body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

There is no way anyone without a modern laboratory at their disposal is able to check this finding. Scientists just keep their mouths firmly shut or they lose their jobs. How long does it take for a piece of meat to decay?


Average Time Needed for a Corpse to Decompose
Generally, it could take about a year for the body to decompose into a skeleton in ordinary soil and eight to twelve years to decompose a skeleton. And if a dead body is inside a coffin and buried deep underground, it could even take 50 years to decompose all tissues on the body. https://www.enkivillage.org/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-body-to-decompose.html

According to Mary Schweitzer her iron preservation treatment is similar to the leather tanning process, so how long does it take to decompose leather?

How Long Does It Take for Leather to Decompose?
reference.com: As with all waste material, the amount of time it takes for leather to decompose may be heavily disputed. However, the general consensus among environmentalists is that leather can take up to 50 years to become part of the soil. Chemically treated leather takes longer to decompose, and thicker leather, such as that used to make shoes, takes longer than thinner pieces.
By comparison, rubber-soled shoes take from 50 to 80 years to decompose…

Everything but everything decomposes and in the case of these dinosaur bones, the bones have been replaced by rock but soft tissue inside the bones was intact. The bone had to be absent for the cavity to fill with mineral rock. So the question arises, what happened to the soft tissue when the bone was replaced? Why was it unaffected?

Wiki tells us kinda: In metamorphic petrology an authigenic mineral is one formed in situ during metamorphism, again by precipitation from fluids or recrystallization.
For any mineral to be precipitated, the water must be oversaturated with respect to that mineral. For calcite, this means that the area of deposition must be above the carbonate compensation depth, or that the pore waters are sufficiently saturated due to dissolution of other grains that precipitation can begin. The alkalinity can also be reduced by microbial sulphate reduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authigenesis

Meaning in English: Such fossils are mineralised (made into rock) by flowing water, most likely containing microbes that cause decay. So how did the soft tissue survive? According to one of the links the fossilisation was only on the surface making it younger than the millions of years proposed by the scientific comic strip.
The only sensible answer is that the fossils are recent and evolution is dead in the waters of deep time.

I had to include this one below:

(CNN)It might be the oldest soft tissue sample ever found. Researchers discovered ancient collagen and protein remains preserved in the ribs of a dinosaur that walked the Earth 195 million years ago.
No, this doesn’t mean “Jurassic Park” is about to become a reality. But finding such well-preserved organic remains from one of the oldest dinosaurs, a Lufengosaurus, is unprecedented.

Evolution stays alive, how

Evolution: A Critical Evaluation

Evolution History: WISTAR Scientists Reject Darwin

Evolution: Lloyd Pye on Darwinism

The Digging Dog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.