MrMontella:

Keep your victim persecution syndrome posts to yourself sir.


Read and understand, ranchhoddas has already cleared your above.

Keep your victim complex to yourself ogbeni. My link already cleared his post. Read and understand and eschew your ignorance.

felixomor:

Simple question
Why did the university loose the case?

The university settled. This post is a lame attempt to tie this mans "discovery" and his firing.

1. We have found out that he wasn't the first to discover soft tissue in fossils, there was another Christian who wasn't fired.

2. Armitage was already open about being a Christian at the time he was hired, so if the university was going to discriminate against him, it would have been there.

3. Armitage freely admits that he often engaged students in conversations, giving his opinion on issues such as the age of the remarkably well-preserved cells in the triceratops horn. “To me, the obvious conclusion is they’re young. They can’t be 68 million years old,” he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281

Sure if a staff member is teaching biology students young earth creationism I would say that's reasonable ground for firing. Seeing as it is not science? If I taught geology and told students the earth was molded by FSM should I be tolerated because it's my? religion

LightandDarkness:


The university settled. This post is a lame attempt to tie this mans "discovery" and his firing.

1. We have found out that he wasn't the first to discover soft tissue in fossils, there was another Christian who wasn't fired.

2. Armitage was already open about being a Christian at the time he was hired, so if the university was going to discriminate against him, it would have been there.

3. Armitage freely admits that he often engaged students in conversations, giving his opinion on issues such as the age of the remarkably well-preserved cells in the triceratops horn. “To me, the obvious conclusion is they’re young. They can’t be 68 million years old,” he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281

Sure if a staff member is teaching biology students young earth creationism I would say that's reasonable ground for firing. Seeing as it is not science? If I taught geology and told students the earth was molded by FSM should I be tolerated because it's my? religion

Simple question
Why did the university loose the case?

felixomor:


Butterflylion clearly showed u a reasearch link that debunks what u copied
And even explaining the chemistry behind why soft tissue cant last 65 million years.

I even buttressed it.
Even the strongest formaldehyde cant last that long.

You can all but pretend you dont see that

Please repost the link. The strength of formaldehyde as a preservative is irrelevant because we are not discussing formaldehyde, neither has anyone agreed to use formaldehyde as the standard, neither have you provided any evidence that it wouldn't be possible with formaldehyde.

The issue here is you have stated it is categorically impossible, meanwhile I have demonstrated that it is in fact possible which you are choosing not to see.

LightandDarkness:


Please repost the link. The strength of formaldehyde as a preservative is irrelevant because we are not discussing formaldehyde, neither has anyone agreed to use formaldehyde as the standard, neither have you provided any evidence that it wouldn't be possible with formaldehyde.

The issue here is you have stated it is categorically impossible, meanwhile I have demonstrated that it is in fact possible which you are choosing not to see.

Felixomor he says he has DEMONSTRATED!

felixomor:


Simple question
Why did the university loose the case?

THEY SETTLED. You are confusing losing a civil suit with settling.

butterflylion:



Felixomor he says he has DEMONSTRATED!

You can not pick my choice of words or you can debate the science, up to you.

LightandDarkness:


THEY SETTLED. You are confusing losing a civil suit with settling.

Please read the news article again.
Its now clear you didnt read it

butterflylion:



Felixomor he says he has DEMONSTRATED!

"Demonstrating ' for him means copy and paste.
And then pretend that what he pasted has not been thrashed.

LightandDarkness:


You can not pick my choice of words or you can debate the science, up to you.

^^^^^^
||||||||||

Who send this one?

I dropped my link with pictorial backing and you dropped your link so let the readers debate it for themselves.

felixomor:


Please read the news article again.
Its now clear you didnt read it

Again you are failing to understand the difference between a Judge awarding armitage damages and Armitage and CSUN reaching an out of court settlement.

"For two years, CSUN fought Armitage’s lawsuit. The university alleged his firing was simply a restructuring of their biology department and not a case of religious discrimination. But CSUN lost its bid to have the judge summarily throw the case out of court as groundless in July of last year.

So CSUN settled with Armitage for $399,500 in 2016, according to Inside Higher Ed."

The judge did not dismiss the case, meaning the judge let armitage continue his suit against the school, so CSUN paid armitage a settlement so armitage would drop the law suit rather than the case "going to court" as is the popular term.

To help you understand http://research.lawyers.com/to-settle-or-not-to-settle-that-is-the-question.html

LightandDarkness:


Again you are failing to understand the difference between a Judge awarding armitage damages and Armitage and CSUN reaching an out of court settlement.

"For two years, CSUN fought Armitage’s lawsuit. The university alleged his firing was simply a restructuring of their biology department and not a case of religious discrimination. But CSUN lost its bid to have the judge summarily throw the case out of court as groundless in July of last year.

So CSUN settled with Armitage for $399,500 in 2016, according to Inside Higher Ed."

The judge did not dismiss the case, meaning the judge let armitage continue his suit against the school, so CSUN paid armitage a settlement so armitage would drop the law suit rather than the case "going to court" as is the popular term.

To help you understand http://research.lawyers.com/to-settle-or-not-to-settle-that-is-the-question.html

Was there soft tissue found in this 65 million year old fossil yes or no?

felixomor:


"Demonstrating ' for him means copy and paste.
And then pretend that what he pasted has not been thrashed.

Okay. I have posted an article where a scientist has demonstrated that a model or models exist where it is possible. Therefore you cannot state that is is categorically impossible.

I hope this is now clearer for youm

LightandDarkness:


Again you are failing to understand the difference between a Judge awarding armitage damages and Armitage and CSUN reaching an out of court settlement.

"For two years, CSUN fought Armitage’s lawsuit. The university alleged his firing was simply a restructuring of their biology department and not a case of religious discrimination. But CSUN lost its bid to have the judge summarily throw the case out of court as groundless in July of last year.

So CSUN settled with Armitage for $399,500 in 2016, according to Inside Higher Ed."

The judge did not dismiss the case, meaning the judge let armitage continue his suit against the school, so CSUN paid armitage a settlement so armitage would drop the law suit rather than the case "going to court" as is the popular term.

To help you understand http://research.lawyers.com/to-settle-or-not-to-settle-that-is-the-question.html

@Bolded

Please read it hundred times and answer my question.

butterflylion:


Was there soft tissue found in this 65 million year old fossil yes or no?

Yes, that issue is not in contention. What has been argued so far is the reason why those tissues exist?

If they are not 65 million years old then your argument on this thread should also be with carbon dating as that was how it was demonstrated that the fossil was 65 million years old.

If they are 65 million years old then the issue should be how the soft tissue cells were preserved for so long.

LightandDarkness:


Okay. I have posted an article where a scientist has demonstrated that a model or models exist where it is possible. Therefore you cannot state that is is categorically impossible.

I hope this is now clearer for youm

A fellow concludes that Usain bolt can run around Nigeria in a matter of 3 days.

You ask him to post evidence
He tells you becos usain bolt finishes 100 Meters in 9.5 seconds so there fore it is possible.

That's close to how you sound

The idiocy on this thread is just too much.

felixomor:


@Bolded

Please read it hundred times and answer my question.

Again you fail to understanding the difference between a ruling to dismiss a case and a judgement on the case itself, CSUN did not lose the case because the case did not go to trial. You should be asking why CSUN settled not why they lost.

"
In a civil case, or lawsuit, a plaintiff asks a court for compensation for personal injuries, property damages and other losses or to enforce some private right. Unlike vicitms and defendants in criminal cases, the parties in a civil lawsuit do not face punishment and have more control over the continuation or end of a case. The rules of procedure for civil cases afford litigants methods to voluntarily end a lawsuit. Civil litigants may decide to stop a suit because of a settlement or the inability to be ready for trial. However, as with criminal cases, a court can dismiss civil cases despite the plaintiff's wishes to proceed when the cases lack merit or contain procedural defects."
http://legalbeagle.com/8343518-ways-dismiss-civil-case.html

So again, they did not lose the case. They lost their motion to dismiss the case so they settled the suit . The former is a decision to allow the suit proceed.

Ranchhoddas:
The idiocy on this thread is just too much.

^^^^^

Someone is still pained

LightandDarkness:


Yes, that issue is not in contention. What has been argued so far is the reason why those tissues exist?

If they are not 65 million years old then your argument on this thread should also be with carbon dating as that was how it was demonstrated that the fossil was 65 million years old.

If they are 65 million years old then the issue should be how the soft tissue cells were preserved for so long.

So how were they preserved for so long since iron couldn't have gotten to the tissues without water transporting it and One of the first lessons in biochemistry is that water breaks apart proteins, degrading the very tissues they suggest iron would help preserve?

Take your best shot.

felixomor:


A fellow concludes that Usain bolt can run around Nigeria in a matter of 3 days.

You ask him to post evidence
He tells you becos usain bolt finishes 100 Meters in 9.5 seconds so there fore it is possible.

That's close to how you sound

This is hardly the same thing. Again I have shown where it was demonstrated that the iron preservation theory was plausible, so how can you then claim it is impossible.

LightandDarkness:


Again you fail to understanding the difference between a ruling to dismiss a case and a judgement on the case itself, CSUN did not lose the case because the case did not go to trial. You should be asking why CSUN settled not why they lost.

"
In a civil case, or lawsuit, a plaintiff asks a court for compensation for personal injuries, property damages and other losses or to enforce some private right. Unlike vicitms and defendants in criminal cases, the parties in a civil lawsuit do not face punishment and have more control over the continuation or end of a case. The rules of procedure for civil cases afford litigants methods to voluntarily end a lawsuit. Civil litigants may decide to stop a suit because of a settlement or the inability to be ready for trial. However, as with criminal cases, a court can dismiss civil cases despite the plaintiff's wishes to proceed when the cases lack merit or contain procedural defects."
http://legalbeagle.com/8343518-ways-dismiss-civil-case.html

So again, they did not lose the case. They lost their motion to dismiss the case so they settled the suit . The former is a decision to allow the suit proceed.

Simple question
Why did the university loose as i highlighted from your copied part of the passage?

Keep swimming. I will swim too

LightandDarkness:


This is hardly the same thing. Again I have shown where it was demonstrated that the iron preservation theory was plausible, so how can you then claim it is impossible.

It is not different brah.
You used rate to estimate living tissue decomposition, comparing 2 years to 64 million.

Thats what u did.
And u say u demonstrated. Nah

butterflylion:


So how were they preserved for so long since iron couldn't have gotten to the tissues without water transporting it and One of the first lessons in biochemistry is that water breaks apart proteins, degrading the very tissues they suggest iron would help preserve?

Take your best shot.

Water is not required to transport ion. Iron is present in hemoglobin, each heam group contains an iron ion which is what binds oxygen and allows your blood to transport it.

This is why in Schweitzers experiment she used blood hemoglobin.

"Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins. Schweitzer’s group performed a dramatic experiment to demonstrate this effect, using modern ostrich blood vessels: the blood vessels which were incubated in a solution of hemoglobin (extracted from the red blood cells of chicken and ostrich) showed no signs of degradation for more than two years."

felixomor:


Simple question
Why did the university loose as i highlighted from your copied part of the passage?

Keep swimming. I will swim too

They lost their petition to dismiss the case because a judge determine armitage's case was strong enough to be decided at trial. Again, this does not mean CSUN lost the suit because it never went to trial.

butterflylion:


Was there soft tissue found in this 65 million year old fossil yes or no?

Yes there was. The question now becomes; why is it there?
Then you start to take rational steps towards finding out.
You don't jump into conclusions because you hold a belief.

Mary Schweitzer is also a Christian. She did it the right way and there was no furore.

LightandDarkness:


Water is not required to transport ion. Iron is present in hemoglobin, each heam group contains an iron ion which is what binds oxygen and allows your blood to transport it.

This is why in Schweitzers experiment she used blood hemoglobin.

"Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins. Schweitzer’s group performed a dramatic experiment to demonstrate this effect, using modern ostrich blood vessels: the blood vessels which were incubated in a solution of hemoglobin (extracted from the red blood cells of chicken and ostrich) showed no signs of degradation for more than two years."

Water makes up bulk of living tissues including blood.
Even full humans are at average 70% water

LightandDarkness:


Water is not required to transport ion. Iron is present in hemoglobin, each heam group contains an iron ion which is what binds oxygen and allows your blood to transport it.

This is why in Schweitzers experiment she used blood hemoglobin.

"Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins. Schweitzer’s group performed a dramatic experiment to demonstrate this effect, using modern ostrich blood vessels: the blood vessels which were incubated in a solution of hemoglobin (extracted from the red blood cells of chicken and ostrich) showed no signs of degradation for more than two years."

If iron is present in haemoglobin and can preserve then why do we further embalm? Why do humans and animals rot Afterall we all have same haemoglobin content?

LightandDarkness:


They lost their petition to dismiss the case because a judge determine armitage's case was strong enough to be decided at trial. Again, this does not mean CSUN lost the suit because it never went to trial.

Simple question
Why did they loose?


You want to still swim?

felixomor:


It is not different brah.
You used rate to estimate living tissue decomposition, comparing 2 years to 64 million.

Thats what u did.
And u say u demonstrated. Nah

Usain bolts ability to run is dependant on his blood glucose, his muscle glycogen, his ability to sustain the level of respiration required to generate the energy he requires to run around Nigeria in 3 days, the ability of his muscles to repeatedly contract at the rate it did when he ran 100m in 9.5. Therefore for the extrapolation to be valid, bolts body must remain in thr same condition it was in when bolt ran 100m in 9.5s for all three days which is impossible therefore the extrapolation is false.

However blood hemoglobin inside the bones of an animal can continue to be present depending on the fossilisation conditions. Therefore the extrapolation is valid.

That is the obvious difference.

LightandDarkness:


Usain bolts ability to run is dependant on his blood glucose, his muscle glycogen, his ability to sustain the level of respiration required to generate the energy he requires to run around Nigeria in 3 days, the ability of his muscles to repeatedly contract at the rate it did when he ran 100m in 9.5. Therefore for the extrapolation to be valid, bolts body must remain in thr same condition it was in when bolt ran 100m in 9.5s for all three days which is impossible therefore the extrapolation is false.

However blood hemoglobin inside the bones of an animal can continue to be present depending on the fossilisation conditions. Therefore the extrapolation is valid.

That is the obvious difference.

You just
Exactly explained why your extrapolation is false too.

LightandDarkness:


Usain bolts ability to run is dependant on his blood glucose, his muscle glycogen, his ability to sustain the level of respiration required to generate the energy he requires to run around Nigeria in 3 days, the ability of his muscles to repeatedly contract at the rate it did when he ran 100m in 9.5. Therefore for the extrapolation to be valid, bolts body must remain in thr same condition it was in when bolt ran 100m in 9.5s for all three days which is impossible therefore the extrapolation is false.

However blood hemoglobin inside the bones of an animal can continue to be present depending on the fossilisation conditions. Therefore the extrapolation is valid.

That is the obvious difference.

^^^^^
|||||||||

He does not know what he is saying. He just body slammed himself.