Atheist says Creatinionist Wins...

6days

New member
Headline from a prominent atheist website declares
"Creationist Wins Six-Figure Settlement After Getting Fired From a California University". http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...r-getting-fired-from-a-california-university/

Reading the story from the atheist perspective is interesting. The long and short of this story though is that Mark Armitage suggested soft dinosaur tissue is an indicator that the dino may be much less than 68 million years old. Apparently that bothered a evolutionist at the university who hollered 'We aren't going to tolerate your religion here'. Shortly after, Armitage no longer had a job.*

Like always, evolutionists oppose academic freedom and dissenting opinions of their belief system. And as often is the case, they refuse to follow evidence where it seems to lead...to the Creator God of the Bible, and our young earth. Notice in the article they refuse to even consider soft tissue can't survive millions of years. Instead they look for a 'rescue device' to preserve their beliefs. In this case, the rescue device is iron. They say, "there actually is a very good explanation for how soft tissue in dinosaur bones could have survived: Iron in their bodies may have protected the tissue before it decayed"

So if iron "MAY" have preserved,.....and, if you are willing to believe that, then why not be also willing to consider you MAY be wrong?, and that the C14 dates on dinos may be close to the truth? ( BTW -There is no evidence iron can preserve anything for 68,000,000 years...iron can act as a preservative but even after 2 years in lab conditions using pure hemoglobin , there is still some decay).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
You probably didn't get to the end of the article, you never do ...

From the blog:

"The school is essentially saying, “We don’t want to keep fighting this battle. Here’s some money. Please go away now.”

Which, in Creationist world, probably means the school admitted guilt and evolution is now debunked."

Nice try 6days, nice try.


Sent from my SM-G930V using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
The world will do anything to protect it's innate interest of a reality without the one true God. It's nothing new, it is the ancient state of man which never changed.

Atheists spend so much time attempting to throw science at the Scriptures that they never mind the intended teachings of them.
 

Rivers

New member
Atheists spend so much time attempting to throw science at the Scriptures that they never mind the intended teachings of them.

Yes, and Atheists should spend more time throwing history at science (since there really isn't any science without human history).
 

6days

New member
"The school is essentially saying, “We don’t want to keep fighting this battle. Here’s some money. Please go away now.”
Which, in Creationist world, probably means the school admitted guilt and evolution is now debunked."
Nice try 6days, nice try.
Haha..... Are you surprised that is the conclusion from an atheist?
I can give you conclusions from Christian web sites also, which unsurprisingly think this is a win for people wanting academic freedom
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Yes, and Atheists should spend more time throwing history at science (since there really isn't any science without human history).
Perhaps you meant to say, "There isn't any science without humans". It's a common mistake to think recording the procedure and results is an essential part of "doing science". By the way, have you figured out how the Egyptians built the pyramids yet?
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Haha..... Are you surprised that is the conclusion from an atheist?
I can give you conclusions from Christian web sites also, which unsurprisingly think this is a win for people wanting academic freedom
Academic freedom presupposes actually doing something academic. "My particular concept of a deity created the universe because my religious paradigm says so," ain't it.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
There are several reasonable theories about how and why they were constructed by the Egyptians and their slaves, but I wasn't there to see it. Have you figured it out?
Science occurring without history recording it; imagine that.
 

6days

New member
Silent Hunter said:
Academic freedom presupposes actually doing something academic.*
Academic freedom allows scholars, teachers and students to pursue truth. Evolutionists prefer indoctrination, and do not want students to have the freedom to question origin 'science'.*
Academic freedom is also rejected in many work places. It seems some of Armitages's co-workers in the university were fearful of his opinion that this soft dinosaur tissue could be much less than 68 million years. IOW...The evolutionists started with the conclusion (68 million years)and and were unwilling to pursue any explanation that didn't fit that one single end result.*
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Academic freedom allows scholars, teachers and students to pursue truth. Evolutionists prefer indoctrination, and do not want students to have the freedom to question origin 'science'.*
Academic freedom is also rejected in many work places. It seems some of Armitages's co-workers in the university were fearful of his opinion that this soft dinosaur tissue could be much less than 68 million years. IOW...The evolutionists started with the conclusion (68 million years)and and were unwilling to pursue any explanation that didn't fit that one single end result.*
The Creationist interpretation of, "Academic freedom and pursuit of truth," equals, "My particular concept of a deity created the universe because my religious paradigm says so".
 

6days

New member
Silent Hunter said:
The Creationist interpretation of, "Academic freedom and pursuit of truth," equals, "My particular concept of a deity created the universe because my religious paradigm says so".
Academic freedom is the willingness to follow the evidence, and allowing others the freedom to explore ideas against your own belief system. Armitage won a six figure settlement, because the university only wanted their own religious view presented.*

Academic freedom has nothing to do with any particular deity...thats a strawman. If scientists think little green men live on planet Kepler22B, they have the freedom to explore and discuss that idea. If someone has evidence that T-rex had feathers and lived in trees, they can discuss it with other scientists. Yet... mention an Intelligent Designer to these 'open minded' people and you risk your career. *Evolutionism is a religion that opposes academic freedom.*
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
The Creationist interpretation of, "Academic freedom and pursuit of truth," equals, "My particular concept of a deity created the universe because my religious paradigm says so".
Academic freedom is the willingness to follow the evidence, and allowing others the freedom to explore ideas against your own belief system.
Academics is all about following the evidence and has absolutely nothing to do with a "belief system".

The problem creationists have with "following the evidence" is that when they examine "evidence" that crosses their credulity threshold their initial and only conclusion is, godidit. That's not academics, it's religious fanaticism.
Armitage won a six figure settlement, because the university only wanted their own religious view presented.*
6days, you are as clueless about economics as you are science. Armitage won a six figure settlement because the university did a "cost-benefit analysis" and concluded it was cheaper to settle the case than spend more money on court litigation. Did you even bother to read the article beyond searching for "gotcha" quote mines?

Armitages's only desire was to muscle in creationism. What he found crossed his "credulity threshold" and the only conclusion he was willing to consider was godidit.
Academic freedom has nothing to do with any particular deity...
When it comes to creationism, it absolutely does.
...thats a strawman.
6days, you wouldn't recognize a strawman if it bit you in the crotch..
If scientists think little green men live on planet Kepler22B, they have the freedom to explore and discuss that idea. If someone has evidence that T-rex had feathers and lived in trees, they can discuss it with other scientists.
Sure they can, these are all testable hypotheses.
Yet... mention an Intelligent Designer to these 'open minded' people and you risk your career.
Please explain, in detail, how one designs the experiment to test godidit.
*Evolutionism is a religion that opposes academic freedom.*
:yawn:
 

Jose Fly

New member
6days is lying again. He has zero interest in "academic freedom" or "following the evidence wherever it leads". He operates under the same anti-scientific framework as AiG...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
You probably didn't get to the end of the article, you never do ...

From the blog:

"The school is essentially saying, “We don’t want to keep fighting this battle. Here’s some money. Please go away now.”

Which, in Creationist world, probably means the school admitted guilt and evolution is now debunked."

Nice try 6days, nice try.
Which is purely the opinion of the writer of the blog.

Nice try, @Silent Hunter
.
ROTFL

You didn't read the article, did you?

As for the settlement, she stated: “The Superior Court did not rule on the merits of Mr. Armitage’s complaint, and this voluntary settlement is not an indication of any wrongdoing. The decision to not renew Mr. Armitage’s contract was based on budgetary considerations and a dwindling need for his services. The decision to settle was based on a desire to avoid the costs involved in a protracted legal battle, including manpower, time and state dollars.”

Next time you want to show the world how stupid a person can be, try to not proclam your ignorance so loudly.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
ROTFL

You didn't read the article, did you?

As for the settlement, she stated: “The Superior Court did not rule on the merits of Mr. Armitage’s complaint, and this voluntary settlement is not an indication of any wrongdoing. The decision to not renew Mr. Armitage’s contract was based on budgetary considerations and a dwindling need for his services. The decision to settle was based on a desire to avoid the costs involved in a protracted legal battle, including manpower, time and state dollars.”

Next time you want to show the world how stupid a person can be, try to not proclam your ignorance so loudly.

You're the one dumb enough to think I didn't understand it was a settlement. Or even that settlements are usually a way of avoiding time in court, regardless of who the defendant thinks will win. That doesn't change the fact the sentence you originally quoted was the opinion of the blogger and not something ever stated by anyone representing the school.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
You're the one dumb enough to think I didn't understand it was a settlement. Or even that settlements are usually a way of avoiding time in court, regardless of who the defendant thinks will win. That doesn't change the fact the sentence you originally quoted was the opinion of the blogger and not something ever stated by anyone representing the school.
"The school is essentially saying, "We don't want to keep fighting this battle. Here's some money. Please go away now."
The representative of the school said, "The decision to settle was based on a desire to avoid the costs involved in a protracted legal battle, including manpower, time and state dollars."
Was it a direct quote, no. Did it, in essence, say the same thing? ("The school is essentially saying".)

Next time you want to show the world how stupid a person can be, try to not proclam your ignorance so loudly.

Sent from my SM-G930V using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

6days

New member
Silent Hunter said:
Academics is all about following the evidence and has absolutely nothing to do with a "belief system".
Science is all about following the evidence, however scientists have belief systems.
*Many academics once had a belief system that if I spent enough time in the gym, my future kids would be more muscular.
*Many academics once had a belief system that that man had evolved from a common ancestor
Etc.
Silent Hunter said:
The problem creationists have with "following the evidence"....
The problem evolutionists have is they start with the conclusion and try make the evidence fit. That explains why they eat so much crow.
Silent Hunter said:
Armitage won a six figure settlement because the university did a "cost-benefit analysis" and concluded it was cheaper to settle the case than spend more money on court litigation.
So says the atheist argument I posted. But, the other side of this argument is that the university settled paying out a six figure amount, because they would likely lose the case. Armitage had not mentioned religion, but a different possible interpretation of evidence. A Univeristy official then yelled 'We won't tolerate your religion in this department'.
Terminating an employee because of their religious views is completely inappropriate and illegal,” ((Even though it was not religion, but a different interpretation of evidence)said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, at the time the case developed.

“But doing so in an attempt to silence scientific speech at a public university is even more alarming. This should be a wake-up call and warning to the entire world of academia,” he said.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/11/scien...ft-tissue-from-dinosaurs/#ddCCxM3BBexxMWYu.99
Silent Hunter said:
Armitages's only desire was to muscle in creationism. What he found crossed his "credulity threshold" and the only conclusion he was willing to consider was godidit.
No... You are in love with your strawmen. He suggested the soft dinosaur tissue might be less than 68 million years. That offended the religious belief of the university official.
Silent Hunter said:
Please explain, in detail, how one designs the experiment to test godidit
That's off topic... sort of like moving goal posts. We were talking about a scientist getting fired because he suggested soft dino tissue might be less than 68 million years.

Btw..... How do you design an experiment to see if life originated without intelligence? ... You can't.*
How can you design an experiment to see if life evolved from a common ancestor? Answer... Examine the fossil record... test mutation rates in the lab...observe changes through sexual selection, natural selection etc...observe and test genetic drift. Then conclude evolutionism is a fairy tale. The evidence supports " In the beginning, God created..."
 
Top