posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: [post=18324996]Tangerine[/pNot surprisingly,
Not surprisingly, Armitage is not a credentialed biologist or paleontologist. Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and
an MS in Biology (parasitology) and an Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there. In other words, he
doesn't have a doctorate in anything and is not remotely qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology or paleontology. Nor is he a
practicing scientist in any relevant field. I have wasted enough time on you. You have no credibility.
I understand all of what you are so angry about and have thoroughly discussed this with other arm chair biologists. Dr. Armitage taught biology, was
intelligent enough to teach biology and has certifications to prove that he did indeed write a peer review and it was published. Don't sit there and
lie. Read and get educated instead of your biased opinions. Now he may not fit your qualifications of whatsoever you dictate but if he was
unqualified to teach biology then the university is also worse than the teacher for hiring unqualified personal and depriving students of qualified
degrees of education. The university has never denied the find of soft tissue but only that he leaned towards conservative creation. That is what the
law suit is all about.
Almost all sciences have various opinions and most all disagree with one another on several issues. That is called opinions and these various
opinions are written in their books as inferred facts There are certain facts which are the glue that hold the science together but If you leave the
opinions out of the books then the entire picture changes. Most all science parrot the adage that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.
That is an accepted opinion but not a fact. Not one can factually write that dinosaurs even existed 65 million years ago but if science does not
agree on this point then most all of the other opinions become questionable. That is propaganda and you bought the book, read the book and you parrot
the book but that does not make it a fact.
As I said from the onset and which you have not answered is your claim that millions of years ago existed millions of years ago. Prove your claim is
true before you bounce on others with a mad hat attitude. Science contains some truth that can be proven as well as a great deal that is garbage and
speculation presented as fact. Most all science is based upon dating and even then is not agreed upon by all scientists.
I respect both sides of the isle till this is resolved in court. Then I will decide with more study what I wish to believe. You seem to be under the
impression that the books that you read are the whole truth and nothing but the truth and parrot their teachings. You can be wrong and until you
prove that you have a 65 million years calendar you are assuming a great deal. That is not science that is belief and is no more honorable than