Creationist Claims University Fired Him for Religious Beliefs

By Matt Thacker on July 24
news@postperiodical.com

A scientist claims he was fired from his job as a lab tech at Cal State Northridge because he published an academic paper which seemingly supported his creationist views.

A triceratops mount at the Natural History Museum in Los Angeles.
A triceratops mount at the Natural History Museum in Los Angeles. [Source]
Attorneys with the Pacific Justice Institute filed a lawsuit against the university on behalf of Mark Armitage, who worked for the CSUN Department of Biology as an electron microscopy technician from 2010 until 2013.

In the summer of 2012, Armitage was invited to dig for dinosaur bones at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. Hidden in the dirt, he found what was reported to be the largest triceratops horn ever discovered at the site.

He later examined the horn under a high-powered microscope at CSUN and found soft tissue. The consensus within the scientific community is that the triceratops became extinct 65 million years ago, but Armitage argues the horn must be much younger or the tissue would have decayed.

Armitage supports young Earth creationism and does not believe in evolution. He believes triceratops lived no more than 4,000 years ago.

Michael Peffer, a staff attorney with the institute’s southern California office, said Armitage does not wear his religion on his sleeve but does not hide it either. According to the lawsuit, Armitage informed the panel of CSUN personnel interviewing him for the job that he had published materials supporting creationism.

“He told them right from the start he published in the sphere of creationist scientific research, and that was acceptable to most of the people who were his bosses when he started. Unfortunately, a new guy came in who was his boss, and he was not quite as accepting,” Peffer said.

Mark Armitage
Mark Armitage

According to the lawsuit, Armitage would engage in Socratic dialogue with students about the age of the horn while demonstrating the use of the microscopes. Once his new supervisor, Dr. Ernest Kwok, heard about the discovery from a student, he allegedly went to Armitage’s lab and shouted, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department.”

Armitage said he reported the incident to the department chair and was told there was no problem and he should forget about the confrontation.

In February 12, 2013, the peer-reviewed Acta Histochemica Journal published Armitage’s findings online. According to the lawsuit, Kwok convened a secret meeting with other staff members the same day of the publication, and the decision was made to terminate his employment.

A week later, the manager of technical services for the department reportedly told Armitage a “witch hunt” was being mounted against him and he should resign. On Feb. 27, 2013, he was officially terminated.

Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus said it is egregious to fire a university employee for presenting scientific evidence in a professional manner.

“It’s a huge violation of true science academia to disqualify scientific evidence just because it supports a religious belief,” Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus said. “This university has displayed outrageous and overt prejudice against academicians with a religious perspective, and it is an affront to true science and academics.”

According to the lawsuit, university officials claimed Armitage’s appointment at the university was temporary even though he had been there for 38 months. He was also reportedly told there was a lack of funding for his position and the lab would be closed. However, he said the lab remained open and another person was hired to replace him.

Armitage claims he was never told the position was temporary, and after being hired, he was called a “permanent part-time employee” and received the university’s full benefits package, according to the lawsuit.

Carmen Ramos Chandler, a spokesperson for the university, said she could not comment on the lawsuit because they have not been served yet. However, she reviewed Armitage’s employment records and confirmed he was listed as a “temporary hire.” She said he worked half-time as an instructional support technician, and they have no record of him teaching a class.

The lawsuit, which claims wrongful termination and religious discrimination, seeks the reinstatement of Armitage’s employment and monetary damages.

  • Steve Taylor

    Creationism isn’t science.

    • Mark

      Macroevolution is not science. It has NEVER been observed. Hopefully, your mind will evolve more openly.

      • roger

        Macroevolution is a scientific theory that is observed in the fossil record. Layers of sediment are laid chronologically. Study it.

        It is impossible to witness large animals and plants evolve because their generations are too long.

        However evolution is readily observable in bacteria and viruses. It is because of evolution that scientists and doctors struggle to kill them.
        For instance, we have drugs for HIV, but it evolves quickly and become resistant.

        With that said, please don’t quickly dismiss an idea as not a science until you have done your reading and thought about it critically. PLEASE GET AN EDUCATION.

        • AugustineThomas

          All of your theories are based on the idea that rates of elements like carbon decaying are steady for eternity, even though it has been proven they haven’t even remained stable event the span of one lifetime and can be changed immensely by large cosmic or terrestrial events (like a large meteorite striking the earth or a great flood).
          It’s hilarious to me how you guys constantly change your theories saying “we predicted a billion years to short of a life span, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE that we predicted a billion years too long”.

          You’re fools who believe in myths created by atheist “scientists”.

          • truthheatseeker

            Augustine, you’ve exposed yourself already. You have a cursory understanding of carbon dating, state some straw-man issues with it and suddenly you’re the foremost expert with ground-breaking evidence that ALL scientists who use it, all except for your creation “scientists,” have somehow been using it wrong. You represent the vanity of man or you could be the next nobel prize winner. But please don’t hold your beliefs up to theories unless you’re qualified to do so and present your findings with all the scientific rigor expected. Somehow, I feel you’ll disappoint us. It’s not our fault that science threatens your world view or puts you in an ever-increasing shrinking box. The world outside, in all its complexity, is even more beautiful than your wildest imaginations of heaven.

          • AugustineThomas

            You can’t even name a dozen scientists who have actually done work to support these myths. You believe it on faith like the rest of them, because you heard that’s what the smartest guys think without ever verifying it.
            You’ve exposed yourself as a flat-earther, who knows the earth is old based on authority, despite whatever pesky facts cast doubt on the trendy beliefs.

          • kk164

            You are the king of irony.

          • AugustineThomas

            You hate me because I point out that your beliefs, which you cherish as the real indisputable truth, are completely based on faith (and quite a banal faith, unlike that of Christians).

        • Cromagnon7

          Yes, I’ve heard the stupidity religiotards use as of it were a valid statement… they get brainwashed with the “inaccurate carbon decay” just to make these idiots sound as if they have their own science. These are the same words I’ve heard from really ignorant believers who have no more than grade school, so where do they get this information?, they get it from their ignorant preacher/pastor…

      • Iris Lambert

        Mark, if you don’t believe in evolution, you have been severely brain-washed.
        I agree with Roger.. go back to school.

        • AugustineThomas

          Micro evolution has a lot of strong evidence. You absolutely cannot make a coherent argument for having proven macro evolution. You’re exactly like people who believed the earth is flat because that’s what they had always been told.

      • Stacy

        Spoiler alert, Mark..
        1) Evolution exists
        2) Women didn’t come from Adam’s rib
        3) No burning bush can talk (unless you’re on drugs)
        4) You shouldn’t have dropped out of the 2nd grade

        • AugustineThomas

          Spoiler alert Stacy: you have no evidence for your claims and only believe it because you’ve been told over and over again. There are men who are much, much smarter than you who don’t believe in the nonsense you cling to like a fundamentalist.

          • truthheatseeker

            Spoiler alert Augustine: There is plenty of evidence, research, peer-reviewed papers and a discontiguous array of scientists from all over the world who form this consensus. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just science. If you knew what science actually is you wouldn’t use words like fundamentalist or dogma to describe it. Here’s the definition of fundamentalism for your review: “Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines, usually understood as a reaction to Modernist theology.” There is no central church authority in science that dictates dogma. There are only disparate critical thinkers who would commonly love any opportunity to invalidate scientific theories yet evolution hasn’t been able to be unseated giving the mountain of evidence in its favor.

            Creationist thinking is motivated from a religious belief. This “belief” is then used to cherry pick examples they feel support this view. Fortunately this perverted approach to science (psuedo-science) hasn’t held much weight and most creationist theories are thoroughly debunked. The church has been trying since the Renaissance to use man’s new tool of science to justify their religion. You’ll find your Crusade against science will ultimately be the debasement and folly of your religion.

          • AugustineThomas

            All of those peer-reviewed papers are based on the same faulty dating methods which say that seals that died yesterday are 4,600 years old.
            There was “evidence” that was as widely accepted as your faulty dating methods that the earth was flat.

            I’m not saying I know one way or the other. I’m saying you guys are fundamentalists who pretend you know when you obviously don’t.

          • Roger Telstar

            You confirm you are a dumb cluck idiot.

          • AugustineThomas

            You confirm that you are a mindless zombie who can’t manage to bring up any evidence but never tires of regurgitating the line that the current authorities claim they know is true, also without any evidence. This is EXACTLY how people kept believing that the earth is flat. They trusted authorities over the emerging evidence. (They had been taught it, so it must be true!)

          • Roger Telstar

            Drivel

          • AugustineThomas

            Brainless ideological regurgitation.

        • Cromagnon7

          Thanks… good reply to stupidity…

      • http://observadorantropico.synthasite.com/ 7alexaltorfer
    • AugustineThomas

      Neither is old earth mythology. You guys have told yourselves a lie and now argue from authority rather than the facts.
      Every time a new hole is discovered in your flimsy theories, you stick your heads in the sand and explain it away with cheap nonsense. You’re far worse than the fundamentalists you constantly fantasize about murdering!

      • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

        Well, this is a great open dialogue that will totally get you guys places. Ah, the internet.

        • AugustineThomas

          Whether the earth is old or young is currently unknowable. What bothers me is the way creationists are persecuted and old earth mythologists are celebrated despite that neither know the truth.

          • truthheatseeker

            One group certainly uses science and has more evidence for their theory than the other. Can you not see this?

          • AugustineThomas

            One group has more people on its side. By your definition, there was “more evidence for a flat earth” because the majority of people believed that to be true at one point.

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            That’s just the thing though, the evidence is on the side of the old earth viewpoint and no creationist has ever been able to susinctly demonstrate their evidence.

            Ultimately, YECs get backed into a corner and start playing the morality card stating that belief in Evolution leads to moral decay. And start calling out an “Athiest conspiracy against God”

          • AugustineThomas

            You’re lying. Most university professors follow a herd mentality that the old earth myth must be true because a very small number of “experts” said as much. They have no more credible evidence for their beliefs than atheist old-earthers, they just own the university system. (You do realize that, at one point, “all scientists agreed the earth is flat and you’d have to be an idiot to say otherwise”.)

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            Actually, the belief that the earth was flat went out before science REALLY got underway. It was one of mankind’s earlier discoveries when we started amassing evidence beyond what is purely visible.

            There is more evidence for evolution and an old earth, you are just too blinded by your own herd mentality. Evolution has been observed in the lab, and there has been NOTHING observed to state that there are any barriers between “kinds”. The fossil record shows clear progression from ancient species to modern ones, and there is no mix of ages in the sedimentary layers. There are no human fossils with Dinosaurs, no evidence that there was any human civilization during that time. Fact of the matter is that people have been basing unrealistic views of the universe on their biblical faith for centuries. The Heliocentric model of the solar system was hotly contested by the catholic church. This is no different. People are clinging to a simplistic interpretation of scripture (one that is actually VERY recent) because they are unwilling to think and grow. You are refusing to step out on faith and grow closer to him because it is easier to DENY DENY DENY than even attempt to look beyond random quotes which are pulled out of context.

            Look at the history of our own faith, look at the number of pastors, evangelicals, and apologists who didn’t limit God to a young universe prior to the advent of the YEC movement. Look at Ken Ham’s lies and hipocracy, look at Ray Comfort’s inability to understand even the most simple scientific principles. Look at Genesis and see how the literal interpretation just doesn’t add up. Look at History and see how Exodus in no way fits into the reign of Ramses II. As I said before, I am a christian so I am in no way saying these stories are false. Exodus lines up nicely earlier in history, but only a few hundred years after creation according to you. Adam and Eve most likely existed, but not as the first humans, even the bible doesn’t allude to that when you look at the story as a whole. And what is a human in the eyes of God? Are we really limiting it to what WE have classified as Homo Sapiens? That’s kinda pompus, don’t you think?

          • AugustineThomas

            Modern claims of scientific fact have been wrong every bit as often in the last fifty years as in the first fifty years of modern science (which Christians created).
            The ironic thing is that even your heroes admit that the old-earth theory is just that, a theory. There’s no possible way to document the rates of chemical decay for 4.5 billion fantasy years and there is just as much credible evidence that suggests a young earth. There is unfortunately a Flat-Earth Society which attempts to suppress all evidence which calls their faith into question.

          • truthheatseeker

            psssh, so then you don’t really have anything. You just came on here to confuse the ignorant and impressionable (usually more effective on kids) twist the meaning of fundamentalism, which you preach, and try to turn it back on “us” because we’re the worldwide grand conspirators to trick the world’s inhabitants the earth is really much older than some middle eastern creation myth says. LOL

          • AugustineThomas

            By the way, the charges that you level against YECs, that they don’t understand basic science, could just as easily be leveled against your old-earth mythologist heroes.
            Again, what we’re dealing with here is a majority versus a minority, nothing else. It could have seemed insane to believe that Jews weren’t inferior in Nazi Germany because you would have been so often shouted down by the true believers in eugenic “science”..

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            We’re not talking about some fringe hypothesis, here. And we are not talking about the popular culture use of the word “theory”. Something that seems common to every Young-Earth creationist is the fact that they do not understand what a Scientific theory is. Scientific theory is an explanation of the evidence. Theories do not grow up and become laws, and 98% of what we believe about the universe is theory.

            We aren’t looking at majority vs. Minority here: we are looking at evidence vs. lack of evidence. I ask again, if Dinosaurs died alongside humans in the flood, then why is it that we find no human remains among dinosaurs? Why are there no dinosaurs buried alongside humans? How did land-living dinosaurs migrate from the middle east to the Americas after the flood? And why is there no evidence of North American dinosaurs in the middle East? If your belief is true, then the evidence would be obvious. So where is the evidence? Show me one human skeleton that died with a Dinosaur and you will blow evolutionary theory out of the water. Explain how insects reached the massive size that they did, and why the world doesn’t support that now. Show me the evidence, I don’t want quotes that may or may not have been taken out of context, I want evidence for your beliefs. Evidence that man and T-rex lived together, evidence that they all died in a flood. Evidence that the geological formations of the world are not a result of billions of years of plate tectonics.

            Oh, and those charges were specifically leveled at Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.

          • AugustineThomas

            There is more evidence that old-earth mythology is false than there is evidence that it’s true. That’s what you’re unable to admit and you seem to think if you can only level enough meaningless ad hominem insults, you can win the debate without ever worrying about pesky evidence.

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            And yet, you have yet to present any explanations or evidence for your beliefs. You have made multiple claims that you have yet to back up, and you haven’t answered any of my questions either. If the universe is so young, how is it that we can see stars that are millions of light years away? Light travels at a set speed, it has been measured. We know how far it travels in a year. So, how has light from Andromeda (which is the closest galaxy to ours at 2 MILLION light years away) reached earth if it has only existed for approximately 6,000 years and 5 days

          • SpaceAtheist

            How / why in the world are you calling yourself a christian? You have stated so many reasons why believing on “faith” is a very bad thing. Kudos to you for at least acknowledging the nonsense, but none of your (quite excellent) questions matter at all, if you are required to shut down rational thought and spend all your time reconciling new evidence with old bible stories. Anyways, I enjoyed reading your posts. Peace.

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            That’s just the thing though, prior to the YEC movement (and a few other exceptions in history) the core of christianity has never been shaken by any scientific findings, and I don’t believe it ever will. The bible very specifically teaches people to learn and grow, both in spiritual understanding and worldly understanding. Never once have I said any of these stories are untrue, in fact I believe in all of them, I just don’t believe that they are as directly literal as Ken Ham and other YEC christians think they are, and I most certainly do not believe that they take place in the last 6,000 years. I have always believed in the allegorical nature of much of the Bible, even when I was a child and more prone to accept the more outrageous claims that many christians make. I don’t believe that Evolution or Abiogenesis go against Christian teachings, in fact I actually like Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the Big Bang from a theological standpoint. I claim Christianity because I believe in Jesus Christ, and have experienced God in my personal life. I recognize that there is no direct proof that I can offer toward the existence of God, and I most certainly recognize that any proof would be nowhere near as simplistic as many YEC christians claim. And I’m ok with all of that, in all honesty. I live my life, and minister where I can but try not to make a nuisance out of myself. The main times I really get all involved is when people that claim to believe in the same things I do spread obvious fallacies. Otherwise, I stick to my own studies and build on my own understanding of how all the pieces fit together.

          • AugustineThomas

            You should stop basing your opinion of others on how much you perceive them to agree with you. It makes your beliefs seem intellectually flimsy.

          • AugustineThomas

            You haven’t presented any evidence for your beliefs, just appealed to authority.
            I think we’re again dealing with the idea that if you know the rate that it takes for light to move now, then you know how long it takes for all the history of the universe and even when we have proven that the rate changes.
            Why couldn’t God make the light move much faster and then slow down as the universe aged or create the universe with the light already spread out? How do you know the light couldn’t have started nearer to where it’s at? The Big Bang is a theory, we don’t know for a fact that all of the light started in one place.
            I actually do believe the Big Bang is relatively accurate, but let’s think of an explosion. Do the projectiles from an explosion expand at a constant rate or do they slow down the further away they get from the point of explosion?

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            I have never appealed to authority, just asked for an explanation of your beliefs. So, what you are saying is that the God of truth made the universe look older than it does by speeding up light rates at creation? You are saying that an unchanging God decided just to screw with nature in the beginning. And what the hell does any of this have to do with the Big Bang? The speed of light is constant and it’s sources are obvious. If light is coming from a star millions of light years away from Earth, it will take millions of years for said light to travel to Earth. According to what you have said, we have a God who can’t even be relied on to keep the laws of nature the same.

            As I have said several times, you want to take the Bible 100% literally? Good, then the sky is a Firmament (or vault) Genesis 1:6) that is AS HARD AS BRONZE (Job 37:18) which keeps the water above separate from the water below (Genesis 1:6) and stars are attached to said Firmament (Genesis 1:14). The moon is also it’s own source of light (Genesis 1:16) Oh, and the sun clearly isn’t a star, because it is one of the great lights, and there are no other planets, because… you know… the firmament and the stars are lights attached to said firmament according to Genesis. Oh, and the earth existed before light (Genesis 1:2). Oh yea, and day and night existed before the sun as did light itself (Genesis 1:3-5). Oh, and the whole thing that Ken Ham likes to preach about there being no pain before the fall, completely untrue according to a literal reading of Genesis… in fact, death exists prior to the fall according to Genesis as well hence the existence of the Tree of Life, plants for food, and the fact that Adam knew what death was.

            Oh, also, there is an interesting quantum dilemma, because according to Genesis, Plants both existed and didn’t exist. You see, in Genesis 1:11-13, it says this: Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.’ And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.”

            However, Genesis 2:5-7 has a different story: ” Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

            Oh, and we can’t forget that there is only one landmass according to Genesis 9-10 and all the water on earth is gathered into one spot. And before you go on about the Flood changing the landscape, Genesis 2 specifically talks about 2 rivers that still exists today: The Tigris and the Euphrates. And there is a slight problem with the animals… more quantum stuff. You see, according to Genesis 1, God created the animals and the birds separately, and according to Genesis 2, he created them at the same time. It sure is a good thing that God didn’t create the Law of Noncontradiction when he created the Earth (but no universe… no. Only the Firmament.)

            Oh, and snakes can talk. No, no. It wasn’t satan, the bible clearly says that is was a SERPENT that deceived Eve. No mention of Satan whatsoever. And God isn’t omnipotent because he didn’t know where Adam and Eve were after they ate the fruit, nor is he omnipresent considering Cain was sent out of his presence.

          • AugustineThomas

            You’ve been reading too many atheist/agnostic anti-Christian conspiracy theory websites. You’re misquoting all of those verses of scripture and taking them completely out of context to the point of absurdity. Is interesting how you turn your mind off when you’re evaluating the bible, perhaps because you’re afraid that you really do have to be sorry for your sins.
            I would correct all of your misinterpretations but I know that would only polarize you further, but I’ll give you two examples of the way you’re being dubious:
            -The phrase used in the bible says the moon “gives off light” (it’s the same word used for “emit”), which the moon does. The fact that the moon is reflecting the sun doesn’t mean that it doesn’t still give off light.
            -The bible never says the firmament is solid. It’s talking about the demarcation between the heavens and the earth. The ancients wrongly assumed this meant a solid dome, the bible doesn’t say solid anywhere. The Book of Job says nothing of bronze. (You need to stop reading faulty mistranslations. Go to the Vatican website if you want to read the proper translation.)
            I pray someday your life experiences will convince you to look at the bible with fresh eyes. I hope you don’t get to the point where you go to Hell because you’re so enraged by the idea of admitting that you’re wrong about many things. (I’m preparing myself.)
            God bless you!
            Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis peccatoribus!

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            I am fully aware that I took those verses out of context to the point of absurdity: I read them literally rather than actually focusing down on the context of the passages. Were I to go that route, the reading would be quite a bit different.

            For example, I would have acknowledged that any reference to life in the book of Genesis was a talking about Spiritual life. I would also have acknowledged that the bible says nothing about Adam and Eve being the first humans (once again, discussion of life in Genesis clearly means spiritual life.)

            Vatican website? AH! You are catholic! Oh, so I’m going to hell (or at least purgatory) regardless for being a protestant!

            Also, has the point that I am a Christian fallen on deaf ears? I mean, SpaceAthiest got it and he (or she) is a cat… apparantly from space. (That was a joke by the way. I don’t think SpaceAthiest is actually an athiest cat from space.)

          • AugustineThomas

            That’s the thing though. Your old-earth mythology requires more mental gymnastics, you just refuse to see it. You came to a belief and now you’re like my favorite type of Protestant, a fundamentalist. You look for evidence that confirms the belief you’ve already settled on and try to shout down anyone who points out holes in your theories.
            And yes, your misconceptions of the bible seem to all come from Protestant mistranslations of it. The Church’s bible is much more reliable and not filled with these fundamentalist mistranslations that make it look so hard to believe in a more literal sense.
            And anyway, I’m not a YEC. I DON’T KNOW THE AGE OF THE EARTH AND NEITHER DO YOU! (Your fundamentalist tendencies are showing through here.. You’re trying to prove the unprovable.)

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Christopher Alex Jones

            I say again: You say you know the truth, so show me. Show me the evidence, break it down for me, stop just blindly attacking my integrity and put your cards on the table.

            Regardless of whether or not you claim to be a YEC, you have made it very obvious that you believe the evidence supports a young earth more than an old earth. I have grown weary of your talk, so present your evidence or go away.

          • AugustineThomas

            You’re an incredible hypocrite. I’m arguing that we don’t know the age of the Earth, you’re arguing that you know the age within a margin of error. The burden of proof is on you and you have NONE!
            I’m sorry I’ve threatened your secularist religion, but calling me names won’t change the fact that you believe in mythology and try to persecute people for not going along with you blindly.

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Christopher Alex Jones

            “There is more evidence that points to old-earth mythology being false than true. That’s what you’re unable to admit and you seem to think that if you can only level enough meaningless ad hominem insults, you can win the debate without ever worrying about the pesky evidence.”

            I am quoting you here, and outright requesting that “pesky evidence”. It’s time to pony up, you know what my evidence is. Its the secular dogma of peer-reviewed research for the last century. Where is your evidence as you have presented none. The burden of evidence is on you because it is your beliefs that go against the grain. So, why are you so determined to withhold said evidence.

  • John

    University employee workers in the SCIENCE department must be fired if they believe in any of the following:
    -Creationism
    -Earth is flat
    -Cigarettes strengthen lungs
    -etc

    Creationism is a false idea.
    Mark Armitage didn’t get fired because of his religion but rather for his inability to reason and think cogently, which required traits for scientists and especially those in academia.

    • Julie Peterson

      When I was in high school, one of my classmates told me she refused to study Science because her minister said it was sinful.

      One day at lunch time, we tried to convince her that the Earth circled around the Sun, and not the other way around. She said she learned that in 2nd grade, but she dismissed it as “just an idea.”

      It’s very depressing, but some people are so deeply rooted in religion that they ignore and/or refuse to learn the facts and evidence.

      The world needs to be more science literate. Science promotes and strengthens our ability to think critically and logically.

      • AugustineThomas

        One day in high school an atheist told me how comfortable it makes him to believe that we evolved from nothing over 4.5 billion years and how he would never even consider data that cast doubt on his beliefs. (He is now one of the most respected “scientists” in the world.. Respected by his atheistic coreligionists anyway.)

        • truthheatseeker

          I’m sorry you feel there “needs to be more” to this world than what is already in front of our eyes. It is your old pattern-seeking brains that has evolved to fool you into comfort. And we didn’t just evolve from nothing. You need to speak with more people instead of some atheist from your high school that you use to characterize the scientific community.

          • AugustineThomas

            I just feel sorry for you that you’re such an ignorant hypocrite. You go around bashing people for faith and then, with a straight face, tell us how your beliefs are fact, despite there being no credible evidence for the claim whatsoever.

    • coop

      So how would you logically explain your theory of existence?

      • John

        I personally don’t know why we are here nor how we got here; and we may never know the answers. I’m okay with that.

        But I won’t fall in the same trap that many of our ancestors did when they couldn’t explain something.
        “Why is there an eclipse?” “Because God is angry.”
        “Why is there a comet in the sky?” “Because God is angry.”

        Today, the questions are, “Who built the pyramids? “Aliens.”
        “Stonehenge?” “Aliens.”

        It’s very easy to say God(s) or Aliens and just call it a day.
        It’s much harder but more satisfying to study and research the natural world and find out what the real answers are.

        Some questions are much more difficult to answer, and some may even be impossible. But for every tough question, it’s most likely not “God(s)” or “Aliens.”

        P.S., Of course there are exceptions:
        the real reason why Lebron James came back to Cleveland?

        Because God loves Cleveland. Go Cavs!

        • ed charles

          It only proves god has no taste.

          • AugustineThomas

            It makes you look like an idiot when you call God god. He is not defined as a god. Even if you don’t believe in him, you’re referring to another word, with a different definition, like an illiterate child.

        • coop

          Science has done a lot for our species, however theism also has done a lot for our species. Based on the science we know and the the documention of our history I believe there is room for for creation and evolution to coexist. Our creation from abiogenesis is just as faith based as creationism. Its just faith built upon a theory rather than a superior being.

          • truthheatseeker

            Abiogenesis is not rooted in faith. It is rooted in science and evidence. Faith cannot be tested scientifically so you’re doing what creationists commonly try to do – consider science faith. That’s not how science works. You should go back and study this subject some more.

          • coop

            Correct, abiogenesis is not rooted in faith. The belief that humans were created starting with abiogenesis is rooted in faith. Only scientific theories support the idea that we originated from non organic matter. It takes a lot of faith to believe in a theory that lacks supporting evidence regardless of where ones beliefs lie.

        • Eric

          PS: If God really loves me (which I know he does), then we’ll see the Clippers move to Seattle…Go Sonics! :-)

      • John

        Full disclosure.
        I’m a scientist with a PhD in Chemistry, graduated from Yale.
        I also have bachelor’s degrees in Chemistry and History from Stanford.

        • coop

          Thanks for the disclosure… I don’t understand the relevance.

          • Dale

            The relevance is he’s an actual scientist. Which, when the subject is science, is relevant.

          • AugustineThomas

            Argument from authority with no evidence.

          • LAguy323

            That’s your main problem, coop.

          • coop

            Are you saying that I lack the indoctrination required to understand what another indoctrinated being is saying? The studies of another has no relevance to question I asked, unless it could somehow be supported by fact.

          • Dale

            Was there a question buried somewhere in those four statements of opinion of yours, coop?

          • AugustineThomas

            Was there some evidence buried in your rambling nonsense where you appealed to authority several times?

          • Dale

            I don’t need evidence. I don’t claim that I have a “theory of existence.”

          • truthheatseeker

            hehe

          • AugustineThomas

            He doesn’t need to worry about facts, he went to Yale and Stanford!

          • coop

            Sheeple

        • AugustineThomas

          This is a perfect example of argument from authority with no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

          • LAguy323

            No, that would describe your omnipotent god fantasy crap.

        • AugustineThomas

          Full disclosure: you’re too stupid to know the founding statement of your own school.

          In October 1701 the General Assembly of the Colony of
          Connecticut approved a proposal put forth by five Connecticut ministers to charter a college : “Wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Public employment both in Church and Civil State.”

          • LAguy323

            Your invisible sky friend has no power here. Now begone, before somebody drops a house on you.

    • Eric

      Hi John, I agree, the earth is not flat, but I believe Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. In some forms they are definitely antagonistic. You may appreciate this. young earth theory (the creationism you, I believe, are referring to) believed by many fundamentalists is derived from a margin note from Archbishop Ussher in the early king james bible and reintroduced by the stewart brothers in a book series in the early 20th century. not really a view of the early church per se. It is a poor interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, in my opinion….and very frustrating in an honest conversation. But I would challenge you “not to throw the baby out with the bath water”. If you have not had the chance, read, “The Fingerprint of God” by Hugh Ross. Looks like you have the academic chops to wade through it ( a bit heavy on the astrophysics, Einstein, quatum mechanics. Hawking etc). Dr. Ross is both a scientist and a Christian. It is well written and reasoned book that you might appreciate with your chemistry and history background. I hope you take the opportunity to read it. let me know what you think if you do. By way of full disclosure myself, I have a degrees in chemistry and biology (Seattle Pacific)and worked on a research team in nuclear medicine ( Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center) I work in health care now (pediatric physical therapy…I liked working with people more than mice and radioactive isotopes)…. and for interest sake, My Dad taught P-Chemistry at Yale back in the 60’s. He is also a man of faith, as am I. Blessings-Eric

    • AugustineThomas

      Notice how these kooks NEVER provide evidence and NEVER refute the questions that creationists bring up. They just say “all scientists know they’re right and deserve more grant money, case closed!”

      • Dale

        Calm down St. Augustine. If it turns out you were right and they were wrong, you’ll get your reward and the “kooks” will burn. That should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Have a nice day.

        • AugustineThomas

          I’m sorry that you got the wrong impression Mr. Dale. I want you guys to stop being miserable and depressed and bad atheists to stop murdering more people than any other group in history. I love you guys, which is why I tell you the hard truth. (I used to be a miserable atheist.)

          • Dale

            Ah yes, you love us. How charmingly. And so untrue. Lying to yourself isn’t a sin, though, is it? So you’re still good to go at the pearly gates, no worries there, right St. Augustine?

          • AugustineThomas

            Think about it though. You believe you’re going to hit a black wall and your life is meaningless. Which of us is more crazy?

          • truthheatseeker

            I don’t believe my life is meaningless. In fact, I create meaning in this life. Not some god or puppet master in the sky. I create my meaning and derive it from what’s expected from me from the tangible things in my life. I am not depressed, don’t step on puppies and am quite happy. Sorry I don’t fit your pastor’s sunday school diatribe about atheists.

          • AugustineThomas

            Your meaning is worthless if you’re going to hit a black wall and not exist in 0-90 years.

          • truthheatseeker

            Correction, your life will have been of no meaning if you’re just focused on that moment you’ll die and afterwards. I’d rather enjoy my time here because we’re not guaranteed another moment. Maybe you live a life of regrets. Perhaps only in death will you find your meaning. That’s depressing.

  • Scott

    Scientists throughout the ages have believed in flat earths and lightning gods and more, but we still progressed scientifically. Maybe it just happened by *magic*, since it would be impossible for those guys to have legitimate science. (sarcasm there)

    The ancient Greeks computed the size of the Earth using the shadow of the sun despite believing in Zeus.
    The ancient people of India invented zero, despite believing in hundreds of gods.
    The Vikings made it to North America despite believing in Thor and Odin.

    Geometry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Chemistry, etc… all developed despite people believing in dozens of different gods.

    So, I posit LOGICALLY that science and theism can co-exist. True science and True religion can exist together. It is only when people decide one or the other should be eliminated that we have a problem. Religious zealots who think science is worthless or scientists who think religion has no place in the life of man.

    Get your evolved head out from your behind and use it as God intended… to think. *insert chuckle* Honestly, the idea that scientists would be so pig-headed and narrow minded is sad. To quote Hubert Farnsworth, “Just knowing we’re in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself homo.”

    • Me

      Very well said!

    • John

      Believing and teaching a flat earth, lightning gods, etc is perfectly fine.. unless that idea has been proven to be false.

      The problem with religion is that the answer for almost everything is “Um, uh, it’s because of God.”
      Q: Why did the sun rise?
      A: Um, uh, it’s because of God.
      Religion closes the door to further study and inquiry.

      Religion is necessary for a lot of people; it provides hope and comfort.
      Religion is acceptable but NOT in the CLASSROOM.

      • Scott

        If religion closes the door to further study and inquiry, then why have so many scientific discoveries occurred while people believed in God (or gods)? Gregor Mendel didn’t let “God made plants” stop him from pursuing the natural processes at work. Perhaps your view of things is clouded by a bias that you simply cannot conclusively prove. Scientists are not simply people who are satisfied with dumb explanations whose answers are limited to “because God did it”. Your dismissal outright of religious believers is one of those same simplistic conclusions. Rather than simply and incorrectly assuming that God must be banned for science to work correctly, why not actually use a little logic to show that science has been fine with men of God contributing to it. Science requires that you are willing to ask questions. Once you have decided you personally know it all… that’s where the problem starts.

        • egads9

          Even if we grant you your points about Mendel and “God made plants”, et. al., that doesn’t support Armitage’s position at all. He’s already assuming, based solely on his religious beliefs, that this dinosaur existed only a few thousand years ago. There was NO scientific analysis involved in his conclusion, therefore his work as a science instructor or researcher in this area becomes completely invalid. The overwhelming scientific evidence points towards the 65 million year mark as the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs – especially since after 20+ years of actual research and study, the theory was proven that it was, in fact, a meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs in that timeframe. Look it up, it was headline news a year or two ago.

          I do agree with your position that you can’t completely ignore religion in favor of science, or vice versa. However, you also can’t disregard concrete scientific evidence just because it doesn’t agree with your personal interpretation of religious texts. The problem with biblical literalists is that they are using the text of the Bible as the starting point for any scientific discussion, which is an incompatible position with regards to true scientific discovery.

          As others have already said, he’s perfectly entitled to his religious beliefs – but when it causes him to ignore scientific evidence and use Biblical fairytales as his “evidence” instead, that’s a line that can’t be crossed when you teach science to others.

          • Scott

            I tip my hat to you, because you sound as if you are open minded and not dogmatic as some of our fellow commenters seem to have been.

          • Bill

            So ironic, Scott.
            I’ve read your posts. You’re the one who’s closed minded and dogmatic.

          • Scott

            Then you must have been reading something *into* them that I didn’t write. I’ve only asked for openmindedness each time.
            In your posts I see you belittle others and claim that anyone who has a religious thought in their head is incapable of following the scientific method, and I’ve demonstrated examples of how that is simply a generalization, not a fact.

          • AugustineThomas

            You’re assuming, based solely on your religious beliefs, that you can know the rates of elemental decay for “billions of years” when you can’t even reliably predict them for billions of milliseconds.

        • RnBram

          Thomas Aquinas decided that God gave man a mind so he could live on Earth. That ‘seed’ gradually led to the logic of Aristotle and The Enlightenment. Science and, more importantly, reason grew as a moral imperative for all me whilst Christian worship declined. Religion is not compatible with Science, but quite a lot can be done *in spite of* religion.

          • AugustineThomas

            Keep drinking the kool-aid. Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes (the founding fathers of science) were all very open about the FACT that they would not have done what they did in science if they hadn’t believed in God and if their religion hadn’t taught them that the world can be trusted and studied because the Christian God created it.

            You guys are the New Flat Earth Society.

          • truthheatseeker

            Motivation to do something does not equate to scientific evidence. So you have no point really.

          • AugustineThomas

            I know you are but what am I?

            Anyway, the only point I made is the truth: old-earthers have no credible evidence, they just repeat the lie that they do over and over and over again and sheep like you believe them.

        • Dennis

          Yes, Mendel, Darwin, Newton, etc were all religious.
          What made them good scientists was their ability to put aside their religious beliefs in search of truth.

          The overwhelming evidence shows that Creationism is WRONG and thus should not be taught in a school.

          You need to chill, Bro.

          • AugustineThomas

            You’re full of nonsense. Their religious beliefs inspired them to do science and they attested to the fact many times. (Yet again you make forceful conclusions with NO EVIDENCE.)

        • Peter

          Scott, you need to get an education, Bud.

          Sunday School isn’t enough. You have to go to school everyday.
          Our inherent tendency is to attribute mysteries to the spiritual.
          Study and research and you’ll find that there’s more to life than “God did it.”

          • AugustineThomas

            Says the idiot who thinks he knows everything from watching South Park and regurgitating whatever he’s heard from the atheists who run most universities.

          • Dale

            Wrong again, St. Augustine. I invite you, Mr. Show Me The Evidence!, to cite the study that found that atheists run most universities.

            According to the study cited below, only 10% of college and university professors (the folks with the most contact with students) identify as atheist. Throw in all the agnostics and the total number is still less than 25%. Before you start ranting that the survey was done incorrectly or was biased or whatever knee-jerk defensive mechanism you prefer, I will admit that another study could very well come up with different figures. But getting from 10% to “most” is a stretch.

            Also, Mr. Where’s The Evidence?!, please share with us your evidence that Peter watches South Park.

            http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf

  • Willem

    More proof that religion is a scam ,pure poison.

    • AugustineThomas

      Yet another fundamentalist referring to evidence he’s unable to provide.
      I feel sorry for you. You’re exactly the same as people who believed the earth is flat because they had always been told it was the truth and there was good evidence they didn’t need to worry about.

      • kk164

        Strange, isn’t it how you’ve never presented a shred of evidence to support your faerie tale?

        • AugustineThomas

          What are you talking about? My point is that no one can prove an old earth or a young earth. It’s quite clear to everyone that old-earthers are the darlings of the university system, despite the fact that all of their theories are currently unprovable.

          Please let me know how these geniuses can be sure exactly what happened for 4.5 billion years when they can’t even tell us what happened for a thousand.

          • truthheatseeker

            How would you know unless you had the qualifications to properly evaluate the methods. Do you have any published papers refuting the technique? I’m not talking about your home-schooled degree thesis either.

          • AugustineThomas

            I have a degree from UCSB (that cesspool of secularism I wish I had never attended, but which seems to impress the average fundamentalist secularist).

            By the way, do you have any qualifications? Or is this yet another instance of the pot calling the kettle black?
            I’ve read a lot of well-regarded scientists who only came under scrutiny after they challenged your leftist friends’ faith in macro-evolution.

  • Joseph marcucilli

    He was not fired for his beliefs but for imposing his beliefs on a captive audience namely his students and the power imbalance between teacher made his remarks inappropriate and damaging to the educational growth of his students.

    • Scott

      Strange since the lawsuit alleges that the department head said there was “no problem and he should forget about the confrontation”. Especially since he was upfront and open about his beliefs from the beginning, and shouldn’t have been hired at all if this were a problem. But explain how it is acceptable for someone’s boss to come ranting down the hall with “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!”
      I somewhat agree with your captive audience argument, except that if that is the case in college classes, how come there are so many cases of professors trying to push their personal beliefs on students? Not just with religion but all sorts of opinions and philosophies. It seems to be the commonplace attitude among colleges that professors can have wide latitude because they aren’t just there to shove a book at a student, but to teach them more expansively, and hopefully how to use logic to discern among various ideas.

      • Jennifer

        Scott, are you related to this guy or something?
        Why are you defending him so vigorously?

        You need to get an education and shut up.

        • Scott

          Because there is a difference between a legitimate attack on a person and an ad hominem attack. Scientists are just as capable of embracing dogma and demagoguery as any religious person.

          What is needed is civility and education, not name calling and mocking. Under what scientific postulate
          do we need morality and decency? None, really. But it is considered a part of being the best human being you can be to have ethics, morality, and decency. Science gives us so many answers, but when scientists make the claim that science IS the answer, they step outside of science’s proper place. Science is just our exploration of the natural universe. In other words, be nice to people, and don’t assume need to “shut up” or cannot reason, just because you don’t agree on a certain point.

          • Lawrence Dzeuko

            I don’t like how Jennifer told you to “shut up.”
            But you do seem a bit defensive and irrational.

            Science is not the answer, but it’s the closest thing we have to it, as we have evidence to back it up. If a new finding suggests that the previous theory was wrong, then it is revised or discarded.

            Science is not the truth. It’s the search for it.
            Science is based on evidence.
            Religion is not based on evidence; it’s based on faith.

            Keep it civil, Guys!

          • AugustineThomas

            You have “evidence” which only means anything based on your faulty theories. You constantly tell us that there is no way to see God in creation and then, with a straight face, tell us that you know absolutely what has happened for your fantasy of four billion years. You can tell us exactly how long things have decayed for four BILLION years, based on five decades of studies.
            You’re absolute fools who believe your own myths with no credible evidence whatsoever.

          • truthheatseeker

            You know you’re typing on all those “faulty” theories those “dogmatic” scientists used. Psssssssh

        • AugustineThomas

          Are you related to a myth-believing evolutionist? Why do you keep pretending to be educated when you’re clearly not?

    • AugustineThomas

      Yep. It’s only ok for people who agree with you to impose their beliefs. Am I right?

      • truthheatseeker

        Religion is a belief system based on faith. Science isn’t. Don’t try to play the science game to push theories rooted in untestable faith. Even if a scientist had “faith” about a theory, he still gathers evidence in a rigorous reproducible manner and allows it to be scrutinized by the scientific community.

        Lets just say we had it your way and we take a somewhat literal interpretation of the bible or creationism. What then? Do we stop seeking truth, researching into our origins. For your ilk, the search for truth ends there. Thankfully we have courageous people in the world who refuse the shackles of primitive man’s religions and continue to research. Obviously the evidence has been overwhelming in favor of supporting the theory of evolution.

        Please give up. Maybe you can try to convince us about morality or this and that but stop polluting science with your Christian faith.

        • AugustineThomas

          Christians created modern science. You atheists call your mythological beliefs science. It’s ridiculous and childish.

          • truthheatseeker

            They just said they were Christians so the church wouldn’t kill them. There!

  • egads9

    Starting with a “theory” and then cherry-picking scientific evidence in an attempt to support it is not science. It’s anti-science. The theory is the end result of scientific analysis, not the start. Any “scientist” who supports creationism as a scientific theory is a fraud, pure and simple.

    • RnBram

      Tell that to the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmists! You’ll get an earful back!

      • egads9

        Global warming/climate change is a separate discussion. The vast majority of scientists are in agreement that climate change is real and is caused by humans. Having said that, every scientific theory (including evolution) is subject to continuous scrutiny and retesting. But until someone comes along and has a better explanation as to why the Earth’s mean surface temperatures have been growing at a unusually high rate since the start of the Industrial Revolution, then human-triggered climate change is the accepted explanation.

        You should look up the historical ice-core sample data, and the corresponding CO2 concentrations, which is available for the past 800,000 years. It’s really eye-opening. Here’s a quote from the NOAA report:

        “Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.”

        What does this mean? It means that atmospheric CO2 levels are 30% higher today than they have been at any point in the past 800,000 years! Now, I’m not a scientist, but since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and concentrations of that gas today are far beyond any level that ever existed in recorded history, doesn’t that lend creedence to the theory that humans are causing the corresponding changes to our climate?

        • AugustineThomas

          Oh ok. So there’s one “science” for global warming nonsense and one “science” for macro evolution nonsense?

          I’m still waiting for real evidence that isn’t based on ridiculous methodology meant to prove the conclusion “scientists” set out with.

          It’s so hilarious how you guys accuse creationists of everything you do for a living. You guys don’t start out just looking for the truth. You start out trying to prove “dumb religionists” wrong.

          • truthheatseeker

            See you’ve just come here to parrot oil industry propaganda and push faith. You sound like a Republican. Do they write a script for you guys. Sheesh. You probably also prescribe to every conspiracy out there. Isn’t it about time you get back to George Noory’s Coast to Coast AM. You’re starting to sound desperate now.

          • AugustineThomas

            Give me a break! An atheist who has no education whatsoever and just parrots the lies of atheist “scientists” like a fundamentalist is calling me a Republican..

  • Vikker

    So, either Mr. Armitage,
    1) discovered the first-ever sample of soft-tissue from a dinosaur — a discovery that would change everything we know not just about biology and paleontology, but also about chemistry, geology, physics, cosmology, and out own human history — and neither preserved the sample nor informed the school or his coworkers, making him at minimum utterly incompetent;
    or
    2) he lied, making him… well, a liar.
    Sounds like either way, he was fired for cause.

    • AugustineThomas

      Sounds like you’re inventing a new myth to comfort yourself and sticking your head in the sand in order to avoid looking at the holes in your atheistic religious doctrine.

      • Vikker

        Actually, I made no statement one way or the other regarding the veracity of Armitage’s claim. I simply pointed out that the only two possibilities here are 1) Armitage chose not to inform the school of a groundbreaking discovery, or 2) Armitage lied about making a groundbreaking discovery. Regardless of which one is true, both are almost certainly fireable offenses, giving the school an airtight defense against any lawsuit.

        • AugustineThomas

          What are you talking about? He did inform the school, whereupon his bitter atheist boss screamed at him about his religious beliefs and then they fired him.

          This is quite typical of the atheist leftists who control academia. They claim to hate fundamentalists for firing people who disagreed with their version of Christianity and now these hypocrites fire everyone who disagrees with their version of atheistic nihilism.

  • JOHN

    If Mr Armitage was moslem the University would have bent over backwards to accomadate his creationism.His real crime at CSUN was being a christian.

    • ROBERT

      And your crime was being born.

      • AugustineThomas

        Please don’t go shoot up a school because your atheist beliefs are making you so miserable.

        • truthheatseeker

          Ah, so now you’re trying to set up the premise that Atheists are miserable and more-prone to shooting people up. The more you type the more disgusting you become. Come now, tell us how much of a pious person you are again.

          • AugustineThomas

            There are dozens of studies which confirm that atheists have higher rates of depression and suicide.

          • Dale

            Please point us to them, Mr. Where’s The Evidence.

        • Dale

          St. Augustine, there is no such thing as “atheist beliefs.” You really are ignorant, aren’t you? You may also be stupid, but perhaps not. You certainly haven’t done your homework. If you’re going to go off ranting and raving about something, you should at least learn what it is you are ranting and raving about.

          I’ll get you started: Atheism embraces NO beliefs. It is simply and only a lack of belief in deities. That’s it. Yes, I know, you’ve been told all sorts of other things, but don’t believe everything you hear. Look it up yourself–in a dictionary, not on a paranoid “atheist “war on Christmas” web site.

          Now, there are many, many atheists who DO hold sets of beliefs, principles, etc., but those beliefs are something else, not atheism. Some atheists are Secular Humanists, for example. Some are Buddhists. There are many other philosophies that atheists may embrace without believing in deities.

          Also, enough already with the “atheists are miserable” nonsense. Atheists are no more or less miserable than anyone else. Just because YOU can’t comprehend finding meaning in a godless world doesn’t mean nobody can. Stop projecting your misery on others.

          • AugustineThomas

            It’s quite absurd to suggest that atheism is somehow superior to other belief systems, when it is most certainly a belief system (the ugliest one possible).

            There’s a reason atheists are the biggest murderers in history and Christians the most prolific charitable givers.

          • Dale

            And where in my post did I suggest that atheism is “somehow superior”? Either you are profoundly paranoid or you are seriously reading-comprehension challenged. Or you’re an atheist troll trying to make Christians look like morons. Either way, you are quite entertaining, but if it’s the latter, shame on you.

          • AugustineThomas

            You don’t have any facts or evidence, you just spew hatred like a racist.

    • betty

      Wow, so wrong.

    • ed charles

      Some of kwock’s best friends are Christian.

      • AugustineThomas

        Is that why he went screaming about religion like the atheist fundamentalist he is?

  • Christopher

    This is the polar opposite of the Scopes “monkey” trials held in Tennessee in 1925 that was the subject of one of my all time favorite movies “Inherit the Wind”. The teacher in that instance was fired for teaching the theory of evolution. My how the winds of change have blown…

    • dennis

      Yes.
      And in both cases, the best solution is to support the theory with the most evidence.
      In the Scopes trials, Evolution won.
      In this situation, Creationism lost.

      • Mark

        Scopes lost the trial. There is NO evidence of all the intermediate species required to support Darwin’s theory. There are several documented cases of flora and fauna still alive today that they thought went extinct 65-100 million years ago. Chris is right, the godless scientific community has brainwashed the world in the past century into believing in their own fairy tales, written by cosmic accidents instead of God Almighty.

        • dddde

          Dude ur a wacko. Theres mountains of evidence for evolution. Don’t discount it next time.

          • AugustineThomas

            Yep there’s mountains of evidence, you just can’t remember a single shred of it..

        • Jesus

          Mark, you’re an embarrassment to the human race.
          Please don’t reproduce.

        • moneywhereyourmouthis

          Laughing at u

        • AugustineThomas

          Dennis (and these other fundamentalists) can’t be bothered with facts. They know what the truth is, no matter what the evidence tells them.

  • TubifexWorm

    Maybe they didn’t fire him for his religious beliefs but just for being stupid.

    • AugustineThomas

      Or maybe his boss is a better atheist (like you) and fired the man because he’s insecure about his atheist fundamentalist beliefs (like you).

  • CorporateHeadquarters

    July 25 Come on. Be nice to this guy for Heaven Sake. He went out there and dug up a 4,000 year old dinosaur. I’ve seen herds of dinosaurs running around that are a lot younger than that in a documentary movie about a Park somewhere out in the ocean with dinosaur birds flying around and laying eggs and stuff. They had to have electric fences set up so all the big mean dinosaurs would not run away. Those dinosaurs were no way 65 million years old. They didn’t have movie cameras that long ago so it’s just common sense and logic that proves dinosaurs are pretty young. There are probably dinosaurs that aren’t even in movies, plenty of ‘em. You just gotta keep your eyes peeled. You can see a lot just by looking around. This guy ought to start up a website, and make videos himself about his adventures digging up that 4,000 year old dinosaur. He could include images from his powerful microscope. He could earn a good living being a spokesman for young 4,000 year old dinosaurs. That more fun anyway than renting your own precious time to get a paycheck from school or corporation. Go find more dinosaurs and take an iPhone thing along. There are some video apps available now so your video pictures look good. Just be kind and think good thought. Good thoughts become things you know.

    • AugustineThomas

      I think the “hard evidence” behind your beliefs comes from Stephen Hawking’s fantasies..

      • truthheatseeker

        His fantasies are probably way more intelligently interesting than anything you’ve commented.

        • AugustineThomas

          I’ll go with Galileo, a man whose work actually led to something. Hawking is just loved by trendy atheists because he’s so bitter and they think he must be super smart because he talks through a computer.
          Again, you guys have no evidence for your beliefs. You’re exactly equivalent to the people who said they had all the evidence they needed that the earth is flat.

  • Craig_Knaak

    Being stupid is a religious position?

  • moneywhereyourmouthis

    So does this mean that engineers can ignore structural integrity because god will keep the building from falling, or how about pilots continuing to fly a plane that is low on fuel because god well hold it up in the sky? He was terminated for doing the job of a preacher, not what he was hired to do which was study science and publish scientific fact. NEXT!

    • AugustineThomas

      You’re a Natural Born Atheistic Fundamentalist.

      • truthheatseeker

        I like how you are doing a classic Republican tactic of trying to capture the message against you – fundamentalist – and twisting it in weird ways so that it loses it’s meaning whereupon you use it incorrectly against the people who are calling you a fundamentalist (and rightly so). You are also using buzzwods like Atheist to invoke fear. I’m actually surprised you didn’t mention Stalin or Hitler for the uber effect. It’s always your kinds of posters that take these comment threads to stupid land. Give up already.

        • AugustineThomas

          I’m not a Republican. Hitler and Stalin were atheists who thought religious folk were dumb.
          You guys do operate exactly like them, trying to crush all opposition, lest you have to answer for your hollow theories.

          • truthheatseeker

            Sure buddy, whatever floats your wild imagination. Take your medication and let us know when you feel better Mr. Crusader.

          • AugustineThomas

            Let me know when you read a real history book, one not created by a fellow leftist, Mr. Ignorant of His Own History!

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            Well, I will say that he did finally get one thing right. Hitler (and most likely Stalin as well, but I know less about Russia than Europe) didn’t believe an any god (at least not as depicted in any known religion) and used religion simply as a political tool.

            Hitler did have a fascination with the occult, but that, once again was a means for him to increase his political power.

      • Dale

        St. Augustine, your ignorance should embarrass you. Please look up “fundamentalist” in a dictionary. You will see several definitions, none of which can be applied with atheists or atheism. In fact–and I hope I’m not hurting your brain here–atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is not a religion, it embraces no dogma, promotes no doctrine, teaches nothing. It is simply and ONLY a lack of belief in deities, yours or anyone else’s. Kind of like your lack of belief in the god Thor does not make your “athorism” into a set of beliefs, principles or ideas. You just don’t believe in Thor. End of story. Get it? Same thing with atheists except they also don’t believe in any of the other gods, including yours. Get over it. You’re free to believe in Zeus if you like. Atheists don’t care as long as you leave them alone and don’t start forcing Zeus on them.

        Try to get your head around the idea that a lack of belief in something does not add up to anything more than that.

        I know it’s hard to calm all that irrational rage and fear you’ve allowed the Fox News crowd to ruin your days, but do try.

        • AugustineThomas

          You guys believe you’re right and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary. That’s a fundamentalist whether you like it or not!

          • Dale

            Right about what? The definition of “atheist”? It’s not really all that complicated, St. Augustine. Or debatable. You’re really quite entertaining.

          • AugustineThomas

            You’re extremely childish and incapable of argument, all you can muster is petty name calling.

          • truthheatseeker

            Do you mean we’re incapable of having a childish “argument” with you. My buddies are in stitches reading your posts. You’ll be our poster boy for religiously induced ignorance. I’m pretty sure you weren’t like this your whole life. Good luck.

          • AugustineThomas

            Yet again you have no evidence and no good arguments. Like any leftist, you’re reduced to trying to win by claiming to have the majority, as if your buddies “being in stitches” proves anything whatsoever.

  • Randal Colling

    Armitage can believe whatever he wishes. However, in the real world, how are you going to teach in classroom, when your beliefs are in such conflict with reality? He thinks the dinos were here 4000 years ago? Really?

    • AugustineThomas

      From Christian Courier:

      Numerous evidences reveal that evolutionary dating methods are not reliable. The following examples demonstrate the folly of giving unqualified endorsement to the various “clocks” that are reputed to require an ancient earth.

      · Studies on submarine basaltic rocks from Hawaii, known to have formed less than two hundred years ago, when dated by the potassium-argon method, yielded ages from 160 million to almost three billion years (Funkhouser and Naughton 1968, 4601).

      · The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old (Keith and Anderson 1963, 634).

      · Freshly-killed seals have been dated at up to 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded dates as high as 4,600 years (Dort 1971, 210). In our book, Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, we documented one case where muscle tissue from a mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years! (Jackson, 1989a, 13).

      • Randal Colling

        I like how you actually back up your claims with the data. My respect to you. I still feel that religion is just another form of superstition, but the fact is there is much we just dont know.

        • kk164

          You have got to be kidding. Facts? Data? Only to the finfoil hat brigade…
          ROTFLMAO!

      • lance Geologist

        “Studies on submarine basaltic rocks from Hawaii, known to have formed
        less than two hundred years ago, when dated by the potassium-argon
        method, yielded ages from 160 million to almost three billion years
        (Funkhouser and Naughton 1968, 4601).” 160 million years is the age of the melted rocks that formed the lava! Picking and choosing “facts” and ignoring all else still does not prove a young Earth.

        • AugustineThomas

          Neither can be proven based on the current limits to human knowledge. So why are creationists called stupid and old earth fundamentalists given million dollar grants?!

          • lance Geologist

            because you are wrong

          • AugustineThomas

            That’s you buddy. The burden of proof is on you. I’m not the one saying that I know for a fact that the earth is young. You’re the one saying that you know for a fact that it’s old because (wait for it) you somehow know how chemicals decayed 4.5 billion fantasy years ago..

          • SpaceAtheist

            You can’t believe that simple life began on it’s own and evolved for millions of years, but you can believe in an all-powerful all-knowing entity who does not need to be explained at all because (wait for it) you somehow KNOW IN YOUR HEAD that it’s not a fantasy. You can’t even provide a flawed experiment to be performed, you can’t even have peer reviewed research, in fact you haven’t a single fact. May as well believe you have fairies living up your butt… which by your reasoning, the burden of proof now lies on you to prove otherwise.

          • AugustineThomas

            I just don’t understand why you don’t move to North Korea with all the rational atheists?
            And I think you’re confused. Atheists are right to point out that, if religious Christians want God acknowledged as a fact, they would have to prove him. It’s not on atheists to prove his nonexistence. This is the EXACT same situation with old-earth mythologists. The burden isn’t on us to prove that it’s not true, it’s on you to prove that it is true.
            The major difference is that we admit our faith. As I’ve mentioned though, there is much evidence that points towards God (infinitely more than what points to old-earth nonsense).
            You guys have set out with your nihilistic faith and attempted to bend the facts to your preconceived notions and try to destroy anyone who denies your absurd faith.
            But the bible does say “by their fruits, you will know them”. And we’ve seen the fruits of Christianity (modernity) and the fruits of atheism (never-ending mass murder).
            There’s a reason that atheists destroy every culture they take over and are forced to live as parasites on other cultures.

          • SpaceAtheist

            Are you actually trying to convince yourself that the bible has produced perfect fruit? You really are deluded. Your perfect god, wrote a perfect book, that has been perfectly misused to kill perfectly innocent people. Thousands of years later, aftering unending religious wars, and numerous prophets claiming to have new revelations and the real truth is still one big pile of confusion that your god is unwilling or unable to straighten out. If by the fruits we know them, then your religion and bible are rotten.

          • AugustineThomas

            There have people who have used the bible, because it is so powerful, to justify their own evil. That’s not the bible. That’s people following their own lust for power.
            The fruits I’m speaking of are modernity, equality, civil rights, etc.

          • AugustineThomas

            By the way you shouldn’t be such an ignorant ingrate. All atheists were murdered before Christians began to establish the practice of showing them compassion despite their misguided beliefs.

          • SpaceAtheist

            Yeah, that’s how christianity has spread – by killing anyone who disagreed with them and you are proud of the fact. Probably miss the good ole days when you could burn witches at the stake because your “god” believed in them and wanted them dead but couldn’t kill them himself. You are the ignorant ingrate – using science to spread your superstition. Wait until you need antibiotics then tell your doctor you don’t believe in evolution. I dare you.

          • AugustineThomas

            That was Protestants who burned “witches”. As for burning heretics, it’s hard to disagree with the logic. If say a thousand heretics and apostates had been put to death, we could have avoided the senseless murder of now literally billions of unborn children.
            Anyway, it’s a well known fact that Christianity was spread by choice. There were many instances of people forcing Christianity on other populations, but, by far, it has been spread by people choosing to convert because of the Holy Spirit and the obvious truth that Christianity is much healthier for a people than atheism, agnosticism, hokey spiritualism or any other religion.

          • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

            Stars. Just. Stars.

  • freonpsandoz

    The original articles listed in https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AreIycSHU_CidFYtZ01kdnZ5d0FQYmZ0bmxJc0l3SFE#gid=0 only say that some tissue structures can be observed in fossils. They don’t say that the tissue structures are “fresh” and they don’t say that the structures are “recent.”

    • lance Geologist

      Creationists are not interested in reading the initial articles, they seem to only like non scientific headlines and take the headlines as fact.

  • Andrew Dempsey

    What they should have done:

    Quietly let the guy publish his paper supporting creationism. The scientific community would have peer reviewed it and found it to be lacking. Let the guy respond to these reviews. If he works with the scientific community and reacts to the reviews in an honest and scientific way, then let him stay. But if he ignores the opinions of so many scientists even after they reviewed his specific paper, then that would be grounds for termination, as this isn’t proper for a scientist. [And he couldn't sue you for that.]

    Also, I think creationism is quite stupid. But I think it is even stupider to have a bunch of scientist that believe the exact same things and are intolerant of anything else – that is the beginning of dangerous and poor science. We need people like Armitage to strengthen our arguments, to check our certainties, to make sure we are sure of what we think we are sure about. We badly need scientist that disagree with one another, that is a recipe for good research and good science. But 4,000 years ago, really?

    • AugustineThomas

      What I think is stupid is how many drones like you are running around telling us what the truth is without worrying about the pesky evidence and holes in the nonsense theories you take on as hard truth.

      • kk164

        “pesky evidence”
        Got some? Your Nobel prize awaits.

      • truthheatseeker

        You’re reached troll status now. Isn’t there some televangelizing you need to dow now?

        • AugustineThomas

          Takes one to know one you ignorant hypocrite. :)

  • AugustineThomas

    And now you see why “all scientists believe in an old earth”.. Those who don’t are fired.

  • AugustineThomas

    By Russel Humphreys:

    There are
    many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that
    indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today.

    There is a little-known irony in the controversy between
    creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of
    scientists— the evolutionists—rely on a minority of the
    relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists—the creationists—use the majority of the relevant data.2 Adding to the irony
    is the public’s wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore,
    many ask: “If the evidence is so strongly for a young
    earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?” The answer is
    simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe
    most other scientists believe the earth is old!

    Going round in circles

    They
    trust in what’s called ‘circular reasoning’, not data. I once encountered such
    a clear example of this misplaced trust, that I made detailed notes
    immediately. It happened when I spoke with a young (in his early thirties,
    career-ambitious, and upwardly mobile) geochemist at Sandia National
    Laboratories, where I then worked as a physicist. I presented him with one
    piece of evidence for a young world, the rapid accumulation of sodium in the
    ocean. It was ideal, since much of geochemistry deals with chemicals in the
    ocean.

    … he did not want to
    examine the evidence for himself, because, he said, ‘People I trust don’t
    accept creation!’

    I wanted to see how he explained possible ways for sodium to get
    out of the sea fast enough to balance the rapid input of sodium to the sea.
    Creationist geologist Steve Austin and I wanted the information in order to
    complete a scientific paper on the topic.3 We went around and
    around the issue for an hour, but he finally admitted he knew of no way to
    remove sodium from the sea fast enough. That would mean the sea could not be
    billions of years old. Realizing that, he said, “Since we
    know from other sciences that the ocean is billions of years old, such a
    removal process must exist.”

    I questioned whether we ‘know’ that at all and started to mention
    some of the other evidence for a young world. He interrupted me, agreeing that
    he probably didn’t know even one percent of such data, since the science
    journals he depended on had not pointed it out as being important. But he did
    not want to examine the evidence for himself, because, he said, “People I trust don’t accept creation!”

    Faith, not science

    I asked him which people he was relying upon. His answer
    was, “I trust Steven
    Jay Gould!” (At that time Gould, a paleontologist, was still
    aliveand considered the world’s most prominent evolutionist.) Thus the
    geochemist revealed his main reason for thinking the earth is old: “people I trust” i.e., scientific authorities, had
    declared it. I was surprised that he didn’t see the logical inconsistency of
    his own position. He trusted Gould and other authorities but ignored highly
    relevant data!

    Perhaps
    the geochemist thought it so unlikely the earth is young that he wasn’t going
    to waste time investigating the possibility himself. But if that were the case,
    then it shows another way the old-world myth perpetuates itself—by intellectual
    inertia.

    Many scientists are not
    the independent seekers of truth the public imagines, so the public should not
    trust them blindly

    I
    remember having similar attitudes when I was a grad student in physics, while I
    was still an evolutionist. I was wondering about a seeming inconsistency in
    biological evolutionism. But, I told myself, surely the experts know the
    answer, and I’ve got my dissertation research to do. I had no idea that (a) the
    experts had no answer for it, and (b) the implications were extremely
    important, affecting my entire worldview.

    Before I
    became a Christian, I resisted evidence for a recent creation because of its
    spiritual implications. The geochemist might also be resisting such
    implications, and was merely using scientific authority as a convenient excuse.

    The bottom line

    Many
    scientists are not the independent seekers of truth the public imagines, so the
    public should not trust them blindly. For a variety of reasons, scientists
    depend on other scientists to be correct, even when they themselves have some
    reason for doubt. Unfortunately, as most creationist scientists can tell you,
    the young geochemist’s reaction is not at all exceptional. Many scientists,
    without serious questioning, trust the opinions of their own ‘experts’.
    However, I’m happy to report that others, when presented with creationist data,
    have become very interested and have investigated it. Many have become
    creationists that way, as I did.

    • lance Geologist

      go into a salt mine and open your eyes. You will see sodium that was removed from a ocean! Because you can’t imagine how something happened does not negate it.Ignorance may be bliss, but ignorance can be cured.

      • AugustineThomas

        I’m not sure what a salt mine has to do with this. You think you’re smarter than the professional scientist who wrote that article?
        Your guys beliefs are based on a herd mentality. Ironically, you do exactly what the fundamentalists you claim to despise so much do.

        • lance Geologist

          A salt mine is made up of NaCl, also known as “salt”. Na is sodium. Sodium going into the ocean is returned to the Earth in many ways, including concentration into salt.

          • AugustineThomas

            So you’re smarter than the widely-respected scientist I quoted?

            All of your beliefs are based on dating methods that say a seal that died yesterday is 4,600 years old. That doesn’t bother you even a little bit?

    • Charlie Underwood

      You make one major error here. “Belief” is a system of accepting something as truth without evidence. I do not believe anything, and think that most other scientists are the same. I see evidence in the world around me and build up a world view in that way, using cross checked evidence from others where I have no direct evidence. All science is predictive. I can take a set of observations and predict what I will see next. By the time these predictions are true every time, the concept becomes a scientific fact.
      I think that you should back up your last paragraph with evidence, or remove it. Scientists do not, and can not, accept anything. If they did, science would never progress.

      • AugustineThomas

        I think you’re confused about the definition of belief.

        You secularists have plenty of faith in your nihilistic nonsense, you just don’t admit it. At least we have faith in the truth, which is a wonderful and logical story. (You guys believe you’re self-creating man-gods or else one of your ancestors POOF appeared from thin air for no reason whatsoever.. Nothingness did it! Haha.)

        • Charlie Underwood

          I don’t have the arrogance to say I know the truth, only that I take things for the most parsimonious explanation based on the evidence available. I have yet to encounter anything that is not best explained by known laws (which includes scientific theories, many of which are also laws) of science. I cannot say there is no “god of the gaps” but only there is no need for one. Until there is replicatable evidence for anything supernatural I am happy with a super, natural, universe.

          • AugustineThomas

            And yet you can’t explain why it took Christians to build modernity and give you your freedom. You’re happy to remain an ignorant ingrate in denial about your own history.

            You take real science and then make claims you hope to be true, based on your faith in nihilistic secularism. (I don’t understand why you want such a depressing worldview to be true so badly.)

          • Charlie Underwood

            1. Read up on history. Modernity is the cumulation of x years (200, 1500, 3000, 11000, 3 million as you wish to define) contribution of peoples of vastly differing cultures. The CofE, who formed the main religion of the Industrial Revolution, have typically been pragmatic and by that time rarely took the Bible as literal.
            2. I have no faith. I love life. I love people. I don’t need to be threatened to do this. As far as I am aware there is no evidence that we get another one so make the best of the one we have, and leave a positive legacy. It is not a question of what worldview I want, it is a question of what can to be shown to exist.

            I think there we leave it; you clearly have a worldview that makes you happy (fair enough) irrespective of whether there is evidence for it. I hope you carefully went through the details of the approximately 4200 religions of the world (in 19 major and many minor groupings) before you found the one you considered best fit. If one of them happens to be correct (and not none, one now disused or one not yet discovered) I would hate to think you got the wrong one just by blindly following your family/friends/cultural norm and not working it out yourself.

          • AugustineThomas

            Your one problem with that theory is that the world, despite its many interesting cultures and their many interesting achievements, never got close to rising out of barbarism until after Christ came and his Christians took over.
            No pagans, not even Jews believed that the world was trustworthy and could be studied. It took Christians to trust that all natural phenomena were God’s creation, reliable in certain regards and could thus be studied and valuable knowledge gained.
            This development gave birth to physics, modern chemistry, etc. It’s highly dubious to steal modern science from Christians and then suggest we would have just got it anyway.

            None of those other religions helped to build modernity and at least give humans the chance to rise out of barbarism in a significant way. The One True Church is the only founded by Jesus Christ and it inspired all the others, even if they incorporated many heretical beliefs and left the Church.

            Like most secularists, you seem incredibly smart, but you would be wise to remember that the most educated nation in history up to that point was Nazi Germany.

          • Charlie Underwood

            Although completely off topic, this is very interesting. History of science is fascinating, as is the history of culture.

            Over the last 2000 yrs (broadly) christian countries have technologically led for maybe 400-450 years; the latter part of the Roman empire (although the Western Empire remained largely secular and accepting of varied religion) and the last few hundred. Otherwise the (pagan) Roman, Islamic, Chinese and Indian cultures have led advancement in science and technology. By there start of the 21st C, it remains to be seen if broadly Christian N America, broadly secular Europe or Japan or atheist-weakly theistic eastern religion China will predominate.
            It is interesting that as far as monotheistic religions are concerned at least, technological leaps have coincided with the most tolerant and secular expressions of that religion (post enlightenment southern Europe, post reformation north Europe, ‘advancement of science’ 20th C US and tolerant late Middle Ages Islam.
            There is no link I know of between any particular religion and advancement, but fundamentalism of any time of religion (Theistic such as Christian or Islamic, or personality cult pseudo religion such as USSR of Maoist China) acts as a brake.

            or “What have the Romans ever done for us?”

          • AugustineThomas

            Christians developed humanism, secularism and everything else that led to modern science. (Please see Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, Thomas More, Duns Scotus, etc.)
            The other cultures you mention made contributions that were insignificant in comparison. There is a reason the rest of the world remained mired in barbarism while Christians took the same knowledge that was available to the rest of them for a thousand years and built modernity in a few hundred.

          • spud8meister

            Well other than the destruction of the base of knowledge after the fall of the western Roman Empire , and the advent of the early Middle Ages . All under papal Christian leadership

            Without the flowering of the Muslim culture in the second half of the first millennium , and especially the preservation of great libraries and the deep advances in mathematics sponsored by the caliphates, you can legitimately wonder about any prospect for the intellectual recovery of the west

            Thank god for Muhammad and his followers

          • AugustineThomas

            You’re espousing a common leftist myth that has been debunked. (You might not want to let too many people hear you parroting that one in the future.)
            Islam contributed very little in the way of recovery of Greek knowledge to the Christian West (they were too busy sacking peaceful Christian cities and putting Christians to the sword; the Crusades were defensive actions and were only finally ended when the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese, and Germanic nations outflanked the Muslims in Africa, the Middle East and Asia).
            Christian monks began a movement to translate Greek documents others had saved from the time of the fall of Rome. This is what led to the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Christians built modernity. This is a fact that has been proven.

  • AugustineThomas

    From Christian Courier:

    Numerous evidences reveal that evolutionary dating methods are not reliable. The following examples demonstrate the folly of giving unqualified endorsement to the various “clocks” that are reputed to require an ancient earth.

    · Studies on submarine basaltic rocks from Hawaii, known to have formed less than two hundred years ago, when dated by the potassium-argon method, yielded ages from 160 million to almost three billion years (Funkhouser and Naughton 1968, 4601).

    · The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old (Keith and Anderson 1963, 634).

    · Freshly-killed seals have been dated at up to 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded dates as high as 4,600 years (Dort 1971, 210). In our book, Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, we documented one case where muscle tissue from a mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years! (Jackson, 1989a, 13).

  • CorporateHeadquarters

    July 27. God created the entire Universe and all life in the blink of an eye. Then he wrote all about it. That’s the truth. Atheists and scientists and NOVA keep making movies about stuff like AUSTRALIA: THE FIRST FOUR BILLION YEARS. Then they say some bacteria lived in the ocean and with sunlight made oxygen that made rocks in the ocean get all rusty and put so much oxygen in the water there was no more room and then the oxygen went in the atmosphere so we could breathe. That is such a ridiculous story. If it were a true story God would have written about it in a book. Who do these so-called scientists think they are? Their “science” books all combined with all the peer reviewed journals don’t sell as many copies as the Bible or the Korean books. I don’t know of any science clubs that have 10,000 people getting together once a week. Science is just plain silly and not even mentioned in the Bible. If science was talked about in the Bible it would be a different story, but God never mentions science. Ever. Some scientist say that when you die you learn all the truth there is to know in fifteen seconds and then some voice says: That’s all the truth there is, and then says: Hope you enjoyed your life and had lots of fun. Bye. Then, the scientists say that’s it. I don’t believe it. One life is a miracle but it’s not enough for me. I want more. Sure Disneyland is fun and all but I want a free ticket to go California Adventure right away so I can ride around with my mom and dad, and all my friends, and play with my pets again. One life is not enough.

    • Charlie Underwood

      I don’t have a clue what this rambling is actually trying to say.

    • truthheatseeker

      “Whatchya talking bout Willis?”

    • SpaceAtheist

      And then god created the devil and said make earth your plaything… go ahead and do whatever you want for a certain amount of time – cause unending wars, horrible medical conditions, deformations, burn women and jews, unleash the nastiest atrocities you can imagine, famine, viruses, bacteria, plagues, floods, infant deaths, tsunamis, volcanos, earthquakes, whatever you want for a certain amount of time.

      You religious people can’t have it both ways. Either god is good, but powerless in the face of evil; or he actually created the evil and let’s it do what it wants. You really think god would allow the Evil to burn people alive, but then care enough to stop the Evil from writing a book? THINK PEOPLE.

      The religious use religion to give them power over other people – not in the next world – but in THIS WORLD. They don’t care about an imaginary next world. They care about having power and position in THIS WORLD. D’oh.

      • CorporateHeadquarters

        Dear Space Athiest, methinks thou doth protest too much. I would argue that mankind created the idea of a devil to blame somebody for all the evil they see others do. Mankind created the idea of gods to explain with one word all the stuff they don’t understand yet, and so they would have a good reason to do all the other evil stuff they do themselves “in the name of God.” We created Heaven cuz we think it’s just not fair to have only one life, one time. We want more. The Guide to life: Just be kind and pat as many doggies’ tummies as you are able to pat during your lifetime

        • SpaceAtheist

          Dear CorporateHQ, methinks that rational minds do not protest enough. I agree with everything else you said. God didn’t create us we created him – actually THEM, since there are thousands of (ex)gods. It’s time for more people to speak out against religion. It’s the main source of hate in the world today and there is no excuse that I will accept to rationalize it. Because it “feels good” isn’t the answer or people would keep it to themselves. How many other feel good things do we have forced on us?

  • R2D3

    Four well-known technical books are Levinton’s 2nd edition of”Macroevolution” (2001), Gould’s “Structure of Evolutionary Theory” (2002), Valentine’s “On the Origin of Phyla” (2004), and Futuyma’s 2nd edition of “Evolution,” 2009.

    How many examples of macroevolution are mentioned in the 4 books?

    Zero.

    Why? No examples are known to exist.

  • Science Addict

    Organic material is the point here… not people’s opinions. The numbers should be crunched. Does collagen last 65,000,000 years? Chemistry is not being debated here.
    How long can this material last before being completely degraded. This find (and many many others like it in recent years) has brought new life to the debate. Unless debate is no longer allowed in this country. The man’s report was about chemistry, not religion. The facts should be studied and evaluated, not a persons beliefs. Look at the fossil. Not the man.

  • Charlie Underwood

    So here we go….

    We are talking about a person who has brought a science department into disrepute. I see no option cut to sack him. What he has done was clever and cunning, but verging on fraudulent.

    I looked at the paper and it does not say the same as the skewed press releases suggest. It actually says very little and is just a note on a poorly constrained occurrence of a relatively common phenomenon. He has organic matter in bone cavities. This is suggested in the paper to be the remains of tissue but nowhere does it say that this is not degraded. In fact there is no meaningful discussion of separation of dinosaur tissue, carbon skeletons pseudomorphing tissue, carbon skeletons pseudomorphing ancient microbes or modern microbes. Carbon skeletons of organic matter, often with some degree of preservation of more robust other organic molecules, are common. Most fossil plants and graptolites, preserved traces of feathers and skin and of course all coal and oil. So whilst these are not common in bones, they are not unknown (as the abstract mentions).Even when most or all volatiles have gone, the carbon skeleton left can be incredible; I have seen graptolites from the Ordovician with carbon skeletons of collagen where the shape of the original nannostructure is still seen. This is NOT collagen, only the carbon chains left after decay and metamorphism.

    There is very clever use of the word ‘soft’. Palaeontologists (such as the reviewers) use this term for pretty much any preserved tissue that rarely fossilises such as replaced muscle or gut and any fossil insect or worm. The releases give the impression that the material is actually squiggly and undecayed. This is dishonesty by use of words that have different meanings to scientific and untrained audiences.

    This is not the first time he has done this. There is a paper on halos in biotite that used incorrect methodology; any mineralogist doing honest work would make sure they used realistic P/T conditions. In using unrealistic ones, he managed to claim unrealistic results.

    For someone who appears to specialise in parasitology, these ventures into phyllosilicate mineralogy and organic geochemistry to obtain falsely interpreted results can only be seen as intentional deception. Irrespective of any religious connotations, no university can continue to employ someone of such dishonesty. If there were any colleague of mine whop did likewise, I would work tirelessly to have them removed before the reputation of the department was further blighted.

    • lance Geologist

      You are very much correct, however most creationists I have read prefer the headlines to actually reading the original( I did read it and you are point on in your reply). Headlines written by non scientists might get your attention but are misleading.

    • truthheatseeker

      I actually think this guys is a plant and this case might the beginning of a more sinister plan to cement academic bully pulpit access for religious zealots who see the writing no the wall. Given all you’ve posted, he’s either completely delusional or disingenuous.

      I see religious zealots (or those being supported by their vote) opening up all sorts of legal attacks to inject religion into corporate rights and now potentially getting it considered on equal footing with academic scientific rigor (when it clearly isn’t). Given how conservatively the SCOTUS plutocrats have been voting, this case could be the start of much bigger problems for science in the US. I guess it should make you laugh when you hear zealots complain about the war on religion.

      • Charlie Underwood

        The whole thing is some form of setup. This is someone with a track record. I don’t live in the US and this is all a bit “only in America…” but exceptionally worrying nonetheless. A people who have grown rich and healthy by the application of science now turn their back on it because is is too difficult to understand. I can only imagine how the scientists and innovators in China must love to see this and see how easy it is to leave the US (and to some extent the rest of the West) in their wake.

        • Dale

          The majority of us have not turned our back on science. A small but significant contingent of mostly good-hearted Americans have allowed very powerful corporate interests to manipulate them into becoming an angry, noisy flock of Fox News sheep with the goal of getting control of the Federal government in order to choke the life out of it so the powerful corporate interests can do whatever they want.

          • truthheatseeker

            They want to usher in the new Gilded Age and preserve their power+wealth until they die off. If the earth and our children’s education suffer so be it.

    • Dale

      Thank you for taking the time to look at the paper and explain, among other things, what “soft” actually means.

  • Ramon Stevens

    America is falling into great spiritual darkness.

  • john baker

    The whole evolution myth was mostly created by a C student, Charles Darwin. Many support evolution because their jobs depend on it. When, not if, but when more and more cracks start appearing in that theory, there are going to be a lot of embarrassed college profs and high school teachers. Anyone who questions evolution is subject to a witch hunt, or being cursed as a “religious nut.” The pro-evolution crowd shouts loudest and is very defensive of their idol. The religious nuts really aren’t the creationists, but rather the evolutionists supporting a worn-out, old, weak priestly robe that is slowly falling apart.

    • Charlie Underwood

      Oddly enough science has moved on since 1840, as can be seen with the technology and medicine around us (much of the recent advance of the latter being by direct application of what we know about evolution).
      At that time, Richard Owen stood out as the last great non-evolutionary biologist, and was one of the most influential anatomists of all time. However he had problems. The more modern and fossil organisms he studied, and the more geological and geographical context he looked at, the more ‘creation events’ he required to account for what was plainly evident, until he eventually had creation as a near continuous process happening over many millions of years and being recorded in miles thickness of rock. As data from Huxley, Darwin and Cuvier came in, he still refused to believe ‘transmutation’ but by the end of his life this internal battle of observation (change over time) and belief (creation) had reduced him to a bitter and (by modern standards) probably mentally ill character. But since then, there was no more argument to be had.
      I would suggest anyone look into this story as it casts an excellent light on the transition from the ‘enlightenment’ science of documenting God’s work to the modern science of experiment and observation, irrespective of preconceptions.
      It is interesting to note that ‘young earthism’ never really existed in Victorian times, even amongst the clergy. Following the likes of Smith and Hutton, a great age of the Earth was seen to be a certainly, and the industrial revolution showed that every coal mine, quarry, canal cutting or railway tunnel clearly showed the vast periods of time that were in the rocks. Of course this time was completely unknown, but was clearly well into the millions to hundreds of millions of years. It is only more recently, when industrialised cities separated people from the mines and the land, that such ideas took hold amongst those unfamiliar with the natural world, and even then only really in North America and the Middle East.

  • Bob Evans

    An interesting movie came out in 2008 called “Expelled.” The flick contends that scientists who support “intelligent design” were harassed, fired, or forced to leave their positions at colleges and universities.
    I would encourage both creationists and evolutionists to see the picture. I saw it recently on Amazon.com for as low as $2.00.
    It is my genuine hope that both sides will respect each other and not condescend to name-calling or persecuting the other camp.
    I think there are decent people on both sides and maybe rather than disliking each other, both sides should bring competent, respected people to get together and talk.
    For example, in CA, Bill Nye the science guy came and spoke with creationists or intelligent design folks. Both sides got along well and some of the Christians spoke well of Bill Nye and were glad to see him, and expressed that they enjoyed his progams on TV. I’m not sure where they met but I think at a maybe Calvary Chapel venue, or similar. I didn’t attend but heard good things from both sides.
    Charles Darwin’s wife was a very devoted Christian woman, loved her husband, but she would be called creationist. Although the Darwins didn’t agree on certain issues, they obviously loved each other, and we can maybe all learn a lesson from that, we don’t have to hate or mistrust each other. I’m no fan of Richard Nixon, but he stated that shouting at each other means we can’t hear each other, and I think that is wisdom.

  • Joe Heisenberg

    It’s called iron…you know an element I can actually observe. He wasn’t fired for his religion…he was fired for dishonest work.

  • truthheatseeker

    I actually think this guys is a plant and this case might the beginning of a more sinister plan to cement academic bully pulpit access for religious zealots who see the writing no the wall. Also it sounds like this guy’s research is incomplete and he may be just a bad researcher.

    I see religious zealots (or those being supported by their vote) opening up all sorts of legal attacks to inject religion into corporate rights and now potentially getting it considered on equal footing with academic scientific rigor (when it clearly isn’t). Given how conservatively the SCOTUS plutocrats have been voting, this case could be the start of much bigger problems for science in the US. I guess it should make you laugh when you hear zealots complain about the war on religion. If they can’t win the hearts and minds then use monied influence to change the laws in their favor, subvert the message, twist the meaning of faith/belief/fundamentalism and try to throw it back at your accusers. Watch out for this movement folks.

    Check out Charlie Underwood’s comment on this professor research methods:

    “So here we go….

    We are talking about a person who has brought a science department into disrepute. I see no option cut to sack him. What he has done was clever and cunning, but verging on fraudulent.

    I looked at the paper and it does not say the same as the skewed press releases suggest. It actually says very little and is just a note on a poorly constrained occurrence of a relatively common phenomenon. He has organic matter in bone cavities. This is suggested in the paper to be the remains of tissue but nowhere does it say that this is not degraded. In fact there is no meaningful discussion of separation of dinosaur tissue, carbon skeletons pseudomorphing tissue, carbon skeletons pseudomorphing ancient microbes or modern microbes. Carbon skeletons of organic matter, often with some degree of preservation of more robust other organic molecules, are common. Most fossil plants and graptolites, preserved traces of feathers and skin and of course all coal and oil. So whilst these are not common in bones, they are not unknown (as the abstract mentions).Even when most or all volatiles have gone, the carbon skeleton left can be incredible; I have seen graptolites from the Ordovician with carbon skeletons of collagen where the shape of the original nannostructure is still seen. This is NOT collagen, only the carbon chains left after decay and metamorphism.

    There is very clever use of the word ‘soft’. Palaeontologists (such as the reviewers) use this term for pretty much any preserved tissue that rarely fossilises such as replaced muscle or gut and any fossil insect or worm. The releases give the impression that the material is actually squiggly and undecayed. This is dishonesty by use of words that have different meanings to scientific and untrained audiences.

    This is not the first time he has done this. There is a paper on halos in biotite that used incorrect methodology; any mineralogist doing honest work would make sure they used realistic P/T conditions. In using unrealistic ones, he managed to claim unrealistic results.

    For someone who appears to specialise in parasitology, these ventures into phyllosilicate mineralogy and organic geochemistry to obtain falsely interpreted results can only be seen as intentional deception. Irrespective of any religious connotations, no university can continue to employ someone of such dishonesty. If there were any colleague of mine whop did likewise, I would work tirelessly to have them removed before the reputation of the department was further blighted.”

  • Nick Farmer

    Evolution seems like a form of fundamentalism. People believe in a myth, and continue making the myth bigger and larger and more individuals end up believing it. The evolutionist “Taliban” promotes zero tolerance against the heretics who question or doubt the system, a belief increasingly showing holes and weakness. Anyone who questions evolution is “beheaded” or “blown up” by the evolutionary fundamentalists’ verbal IEDs of bias, hate, harassment, threats of being fired or being labeled a “fool.”

  • John

    To Augustine:

    Much more info out there to refute your claims if you bothered to look.

    Basaltic rock:
    ‘Thus while Snelling implied that Dalrymple [1969] found severe problems with K-Ar dating when the truth is quite the opposite. Dalrymple found that they are reliable. Two-thirds of the time there is no excess argon at all. And in 25 times out of 26 tests there is no excess argon or there is so little excess argon that it will make only a tiny error, if any, in the final date for rocks millions of years old. Thus Dalrymple’s data is not consistent with a young Earth whatsoever. Indeed, if Dalrymple’s data is representative, 3 times out of 26 the K-Ar method will give a too young date (though by only an extremely trivial amount for a rock that is really millions of years old). The one case that would have produced a significant error, the Hualalai flow in Hawaii, was expected (see the previous essay). Even that significant error is only 1.19 million years (and not the 1.60 million years that Snelling claimed). If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a “false” age of a little over 51 million years. Thus this data is strongly supportive of mainstream geology.’ [author's emphasis]

    Mollusk:
    It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that’s about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon fromthe air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14. The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.

  • douglas gray

    If you go out one light year from Earth, and look back, what you are seeing is what happened on Earth one year ago, as it takes that amount of time for the light to travel to you. So, if you go five billion light years from Earth…………………….Physicists, correct me if I am wrong, but it is hard to have big space without big time…………………
    So if the Earth were created 6,000 years ago, if you were to go out 6,000 light years, you would see God creating the Earth………..
    Creationism as understood by fundamentalist creationists doesn’t seem to work.

  • http://enria.org/ Zee Flynn

    He was fired for being a bad scientist. The fact that he bases his unsound notions on religious doctrine is incidental.

  • Carcrash

    Nobody who is so delusional they still beleive in Santa Claus, or think magic tricks are really magic, or belive the voices in their head are really some supernatural super being, should be employed in any position that includes teaching or responsibilities that may leave people danger, including any roleinpolitics whatsoever.

    The level of insanity required to “believe in God” is dangerous.

  • Jody

    Funny thing is I think this dudes got a case, mistaken about his views or not. All he needs to prove is that “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department.” was actually said, and that he reported it, and no action was taken. Then “university officials claimed Armitage’s appointment at the university was temporary even though he had been there for 38 months. He was also reportedly told there was a lack of funding for his position and the lab would be closed. However, he said the lab remained open and another person was hired to replace him.” actually occurred. If they wanted him out, they would’ve been better trying to show he was incompetent at his job before they got rid of him.

  • MichaelLust

    They fired him for incompetence. He was peddling rubbish “science” to students, CalState is a school. Given his rejection of actual science, he wasn’t competent to do the job.

  • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Alex Jones

    Question, is anyone else beginning to wonder of AugustineThomas is a troll, or is it just me?

  • Ken Kloth

    He was a lab tech whom was proselytizing and got fired for not doing his job. It had nothing to do with his inaccurate findings. They only serve to reinforce the dating methods used. this idiotic story, and hop off the creationist conspiracy theory crazy train. Since this whole story transpired _after_ Schweitzer’s work on soft tissue seen in T. rex fossils, the whole notion he was fired to suppress “his” findings is nothing short of moronic. Equally stupid is any assertion that this, in any way, imperils our understanding of the geoligical and paleontoligical record.

    The enterprise of the natural sciences has an inbuilt rigorous, competitive, self-correctingmechanism that checks each individual scientists’ biases. When a growing number of scientists start to show something wrong with evolution, then I’ll consider changing my mind. Besides, this issue has already been dealt with.

    There are ways for tissue to be preserved for that long. It doesn’t happen often, but it happens. But creationists wouldn’t exactly understand the science that goes into it of course.

    this story must be making the rounds in YEC circles. It’s been brought up in multiple threads here and in several other forums I watch. It’s kind of like watching a Jason movie. Like Jason, the story just won’t die no matter how many times it gets killed..

    He was fired for using his bible instead of evidence and for preaching. He came to the conclusion before even examining the find that it was less than 65 million years old because his bible says so. That’s not how the scientific method works.