Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Archaeological Researcher Fired For Publishing His Findings

Researcher Mark Armitage was fired from his position at California State University at Northridge for publishing a paper on his findings. What is remarkable is not that his findings were not refuted, nor were they fabricated or fraudulent, nor were they erroneous in any way. The problem is that his findings do not support the standard evolution narrative.

What Armitage found was a triceratops horn with soft tissue and unfossilized material. Triceratops has long been relegated to a specific time frame, and Armitage's finding seriously threatened the standard narrative. It has long been said that soft tissue does not survive the 65 to 68 million years that triceratops has been said to have vanished. This deviation from narrative so angered another, more senior evolutionist, at CSUN that he took steps to have Armitage fired. After a secret meeting to which Armitage was not invited and was not aware of its happening, Armitage was fired.

This is not the first time that evolution has been protected by fraudulent scientific procedure. I related the experience of an engineer who went on a dig, looking for dinosaur eggs, and found not just discrepancies in the process, but also discrepancies in the reporting. The eggs that were found were as soft as the sand, not fossilized at all. It turned out that when the "scientists" published the finds, they called out a "new form of fossilization", i.e. no fossilization at all. It is unknown and unknowable how often this fraud occurs; but it has to occur in order to get published, because any perturbation in the narrative will not be tolerated by Guardians Of Evolutionary Truth.

Even the findings of probable blood and definite soft tissue in T Rex bones doesn't serve to move the narrative, because the certainty of other factors supersede the logical consequences of the findings. The bones are declared to be 65 million years old in advance, and the data is gerrymandered to fit that narrative.

I still maintain that there is no possible data which will be allowed to falsify evolution; the data will be either molded to fit, or it will be summarily eliminated and the researcher fired. The unfalsifiability of evolution makes it a religion, complete with excommunication and silencing of heretics. Anyone who deviates is attacked by a coalition of Atheist elites, such as Jerry Coyne and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, so that the attack has plenty o' cash behind it. The AtheoEvolutionary narrative WILL be protected, viciously as necessary.

7 comments:

Robert Coble said...

I like the sound of this:

Guardians Of Evolutionary Truth

GOETs

Maybe the Guardians Of Atheist Truth could be described as:

GOATs

Oh darn, it seems I am WAY behind the Bible, which (in the non-existent after-life) referred to the separation of the "sheep" and the "GOATs."

Or, at least that's what I "herd."

Shizmoo said...

I thought evolutionism was unable to be falsified for the simple fact no one has lived 60+ million years to observe such things happen. Like you said anything contrary to evolutionism is molded to fit and the evolutionist would just say science changes being the nature of science. So evolution will continue to change to fit observe phenomenon.

Phoenix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phoenix said...

Shizmoo said:I thought evolutionism was unable to be falsified for the simple fact no one has lived 60+ million years to observe such things happen

So there's NO observed phenomenon

And then:So evolution will continue to change to fit observe phenomenon.

So there IS observed phenomenon

Phoenix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phoenix said...

@Shizmoo

One more thing:One a previous post,which I just saw now,you made a so-called deductive argument in support of theism.I'm not entirely sure if you did that sarcastically or perhaps sincerely.

Here it is:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2014/07/atheist-morality-on-display.html

1.(P)God is the necessary precondition of (Q)Laws of Logic
2.(Q)Laws of Logic
Therefore,
3.(P)God

This format is invalid because you're guilty of affirming the consequent.
(P->Q)(Q)(P)

Stan said...

Har! Shizmoo and Phoenix, I get this observation:

The only thing observed to actually mutate and evolve is the theory itself...

Great, love it.