Christian Scientist Fired for Challenging Evolution Awarded Financial Settlement

Armitage IILOS ANGELES – An evangelical Christian scientist who was fired after discovering evidence that seemingly contradicted the evolutionary timeframe has been awarded a generous settlement after taking his case to court.

As previously reported, Mark Armitage was a scientist at California State University—Northridge (CSUN) who discovered soft tissues on a large triceratops horn that was believed to be at least 65 million years old. However, the discovery became mired in controversy when Armitage described his findings in a journal article.

“In the paper, I just presented the factual data,” Armitage said. “The only conclusions I drew were that ‘This needs to be investigated further. We have a lot of work to do.’”

Other scientists at the university were not pleased with Armitage’s discovery, evidently thinking that he was trying to promote evidence against evolution. His supervisor reportedly stormed into his lab on one occasion and shouted, “We will not tolerate your religion in this department!”

On Feb. 27, 2013, CSUN fired Armitage.

“Suffice it to say,” Armitage, who is an evangelical Christian, explained, “some people in the department didn’t appreciate [the soft tissue discovery], and somehow they seemed to work a way to have me very quickly removed from my position.”

In an appearance the following year on the radio broadcast “Creation Moments,” Armitage said evolutionists cannot account for the existence of soft tissues like the ones he discovered on the triceratops horn, which is why his discovery caused such a stir.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[W]e have the evolutionists on the run,” he said. “They are scrambling to explain the presence of these delicate and life-like cells and tissues that could in no way survive the ravages of deep time. In fact, it is astounding that they are there even after the thousands of years since the Great Flood of Noah. Even if we allow only 3,000 years since the Flood, these observations of soft tissues are stunning.”

On July 22, 2014, Armitage filed a complaint in a Los Angeles court against CSUN, alleging that the university fired him on the basis of his religion.

“Terminating an employee because of their religious views is completely inappropriate and illegal,” stated Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus in a press release describing Armitage’s situation. “But doing so in an attempt to silence scientific speech at a public university is even more alarming. This should be a wakeup call and warning to the entire world of academia.”

Last month, after two years of legal proceedings, CSUN reportedly settled the lawsuit by giving Armitage a six-figure payout. Although the exact amount of the settlement was not made public, Armitage’s attorney, Alan Reinach, said it was large enough to represent “about 15 times [Armitage’s] annual part-time salary.”

Although CSUN said in a statement that the settlement “is not an indication of any wrongdoing,” Armitage’s attorney believes this most recent development is telling.

“In our view, they certainly would not have paid that kind of money if they did not recognize that we had them dead to rights,” Reinach said in an interview with The College Fix. “The state doesn’t put large, six-figure settlement money out unless they are really concerned they are going to lose.”

Describing the settlement as “groundbreaking,” Reinach said he is unaware of any other case where a Bible-believing scientist was awarded such a favorable settlement.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    “Animal Farm” is happening even in the democratic USA as it was in the atheistic USSR because USA is losing Christian values. Sad. White people need the Judeo-Christian values for transparency and fairness. There is exception to it on Planet Earth.

  • Michael C

    I’ve had mixed feelings about this case ever since hearing about it. I think it’s nice for Armitage that he was able to receive some sort of settlement but this shouldn’t be mistaken for an actual court decision.

    Armitage, as a part-time lab technician with no degree in biology, was fired after using his his credentials as an employee of the California State University to promote “creationism” to the media and he even engaged biology students at the University about his unscientific beliefs (he’s not a teacher or instructor).

    This wasn’t a clear-cut case of religious discrimination but, in my opinion, it did teeter that edge. Good for Armitage.

    • Reason2012

      Armitage, as a part-time lab technician with no degree in biology, was fired after using his his credentials as an employee of the California State University to promote “creationism” to the media

      Please cite the proof where he “promoted creationism to the media”. All he did is point out about the soft tissue and claim we had more work to do. Please cite where he instead “promoted creationism to the media”.

      but this shouldn’t be mistaken for an actual court decision.

      Sure it is. You know this as when a school is going to be sued for not taking down, say, a Ten Commandment display, and they decide to keep it out of court, you seem to claim in so many words it’s because they know the court would side against them. Why the hypocrisy? Fact is he was discriminated against, plain and simple, and the fact is they know they’d lose in court. The court would easily expose it as such, so they settled to minimize their loses, proving they know the court would have in fact decided in his favor.

      Armitage, as a part-time lab technician with no degree in biology

      If he has no degree, then why is he hired as a scientist also publishing papers?
      No, he does have several degrees; he holds degrees from the Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, and the Institute for Creation Research, previously in San Diego, California.

      he even engaged biology students at the University about his unscientific beliefs

      He was hired as a scientist, which makes your claim false. He’s not suddenly not a scientist just because you do not like what he found out.

      And please cite proof he “engaged biology students about his “unscientific” beliefs”

      And what “unscientific beliefs” are you referring to? It’s a fact that he discovered soft tissues that can only last thousands of years on a large triceratops horn that was believed to be at least 65 million years old. Is it only a belief he found such soft tissue that factually can only last thousands of years, not even a million?

      This wasn’t a clear-cut case of religious discrimination but, in my opinion, it did teeter that edge.

      Paying him 6 figure settlement to keep it out of court is better than a court decision – when you take it to court, you think you might win. When you pay 6 figures to keep it out of court, it’s because you know the court would decide against you without fail.

      • Michael C

        Wow. You sure are angry about the fact that I’m totally cool with the outcome of this discrimination lawsuit.

        There’s an article titled “How to not handle a young earth creationist employee” that has some timeline details.

        The school very well might have lost this case. They might not have. What we do know is that the school thought it would be cheaper to settle than to continue paying lawyers and potential fines/damages if they were to lose. What we don’t have is a court decision stating that the University illegally discriminated against Mr. Armitage.

        Armitage has a bachelor’s degree in education from Liberty University and he has a piece of paper from a now-defunct, unaccredited program run by a creationism company. He was not employed at CSUN as a scientist, educator, or researcher. He was employed as a microscope technician.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          He’s still a scientist, Mike. Look at his credentials in an above post.

          • Michael C

            …you’re angry about the fact that I’m totally cool with the outcome of this discrimination lawsuit, too?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Not angry at all, Mike. I thought you’d welcome the correction.

          • Michael C

            He’s still a scientist, Mike.

            I guess I just don’t know what I said that you think you’re correcting.

            Have a nice evening.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You have said he is not a scientist. See my above post that shows he is. No offense, but you appear to be the one who is angry. Have a good one.

          • Michael C

            My goodness, you’re argumentative. Are you always this combative? It’s such an interesting quality for someone who identifies as a follower of Christ.

            You have said he is not a scientist.

            Did I?
            Care to quote me on that?

            Have a nice evening.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, you did, and now you’ve edited it to say he’s not a biologist.

          • Michael C

            Yeah, you did, and now you’ve edited it to say he’s not a biologist. He IS a biologist.

            I did not change my comment. Perhaps you just misread it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Like you misread his bio that clearly states he is a biologist and taught at Master’s College Azusa Pacific University and California State University Northridge?

          • Michael C

            He taught at CSUN?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes.

          • Michael C

            Oh? I haven’t read that anywhere. What did he teach?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Scroll up. I gave you his full bio. Didn’t you read it?

          • Michael C

            I did read what you wrote. Did you? It doesn’t say anything about being a professor or instructor at CSUN.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes it does. Read it again.

          • Michael C

            Mark served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yep, and he also taught. “His career in
            teaching at educational institutions includes Master’s College Azusa
            Pacific University and California State University Northridge.” That’s one of the things they’re skewering him on – he spoke to his students about Creationism.

            What do you think it takes to be a microscopist, which is what Mark is, and what he taught at CSUN? Since you’re not a scientist and probably unclear about what that is, why don’t you look that up? It would leave no doubt in your mind that Mark’s a biologist.

            Here’s more: “Mark’s
            micrographs have appeared on the covers of eleven scientific journals,
            and he has published over 30 technical papers on microscopic phenomena
            in such journals as American Laboratory, Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin, Parasitology Research ,Microscopy and Microanalysis”.

            He’s also President for the Southern California Society for Microscopy and Microanalysis. Again, look up the requirements.

          • Bisrat Girma

            @Michael what he is and he is not is not an important issue which you make it an issue to make this endless discussion. It is the scientific discoveries you need to refute empirically. As long as what he said is scientific all you are talking about the man doesn’t matter. You are not dealing with the subject matter but character assassination.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What Armitage does is significant because his detractors try to lessen his credentials in an attempt to discredit him. They are lying about him. Mike is inadvertently repeating those lies.

          • Michael C

            Armitage’s accomplishments are impressive enough on their own. They don’t need to be exaggerated or embellished. I agree that these details aren’t relevant to the meat of this story. That’s why I’m confused by some people’s attempt to inflate Armitage’s resume.

            Nobody is trying to refute Armitage’s findings. Not me, not CSUN, not the scientific community at large. Science is science and facts are fact. Armitage interprets his findings in a way that is unscientific. For this reason, he was terminated from his position as a part-time lab technician at CSUN. He used his position at the school to further his unscientific religious beliefs and this reflected poorly on the university but his beliefs did not negatively affect his job performance so I, personally, feel he had a good case for wrongful termination.

            This outcome makes me happy for him.

          • Reason2012

            Mike likes to use a little ad hominem to try giving his rant more weight. He typically projects like that.

        • Reason2012

          Wow. You sure are angry about the fact that I’m totally cool with the outcome of this discrimination lawsuit.

          Seems like you might be projecting your own anger at him winning the lawsuit and the university realizing it was flat out discrimination.

          There’s an article titled “How to not handle a young earth creationist employee” that has some timeline details.

          Where they say things like, and I quote “sounds like Mr. Armitage informed some students of his young-earth creationist beliefs”… “Sounds like” is not fact but just speculation – it’s just someone expressing a claim they in no way proved. If it was true, it would have been trivial to bring that to bear rather than just shell out over 100,000 dollars.

          The school very well might have lost this case. They might not have. What we do know is that the school thought it would be cheaper to settle than to continue paying lawyers and potential fines/damages if they were to lose.

          No one has ever been right and paid over 100,000 because “it was cheaper”. They might avoid GOING to court if they would likely lose if it’s free to settle (like a school being sued for a Ten Commandments display), but to pretend paying $100,000 is “cheaper”, along with sullying your reputation for Christian discrimination to defend fish to mankind evolution, is a stretch to say the least.

          What we don’t have is a court decision stating that the University illegally discriminated against Mr. Armitage.

          What we do have is over 100,000 paid out because they knew they’d most likely lose and end up costing them way more than that.

          Armitage has a bachelor’s degree in education from Liberty University and he has a piece of paper from a now-defunct, unaccredited program run by a creationism company.

          You should read the article you cited. “he acquired a B.S. in Education at Liberty University, an M.S. in Biology (emphasis in parasitology) at the Institute for Creation Research, an Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University, and is a doctoral candidate at Liberty University in Science Educational Leadership.”

          He was not employed at CSUN as a scientist, educator, or researcher. He was employed as a microscope technician.

          Please cite 10 cases of microscope technicians publishing papers about their findings in biology while working for said company. Should be easy since you actually seem to believe microscope technicians publish papers in science journals.

          • Michael C

            Person,

            I think he had a good case for religious discrimination. I’m glad he was able to find a resolution that he’s satisfied with.

            The referenced article, “How to not handle…”, is very reasoned. Did you read it?

            Nothing you’ve said changes the fact that his science degree is from a defunct, unaccredited outfit.

            Nothing you’ve said changes the fact that he worked for the CSUN as a part-time lab technician, not a professor, instructor, or researcher. He’s very accomplished in his field of expertise (microscopes). On top of that, he has been published by scientific journals. Good for him.

          • Reason2012

            Still waiting for you to cite 10 cases of microscope technicians publishing papers about their findings in biology for that university while working for said university ONLY as a microscope technician.

          • Reason2012

            Armitage, as a part-time lab technician with no degree in biology, was fired after using his his credentials as an employee of the California State University to promote “creationism” to the media

            Still waiting for you to cite proof where he “promoted creationism to the media”. Or are you willing to admit you lied?

          • Reason2012

            he even engaged biology students at the University about his unscientific beliefs

            Still waiting for you to cite proof he “engaged biology students about his “unscientific” beliefs”. Or are you willing to admit you lied here too?

          • Reason2012

            First you said

            This wasn’t a clear-cut case of religious discrimination

            Now you instead say

            I think he had a good case for religious discrimination

            That wasn’t so hard, was it? Still waiting for you to back up your other claims that you presented falsely as fact.

          • Bisrat Girma

            Does it really matter whether he is a not professor or came from unaccredited university while what he is saying is scientific? Why you are looking hard at the person to downplay his discoveries?

          • Reason2012

            It’s what evolutionists do: ad hominem to try discrediting actual science that exposes fish to mankind evolution as the anti-science storytelling it is.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      He has his MS in Biology. He’s a member of the Microscopy Society of America, the Southern California Academy of Sciences
      and the American Society of Parasitologists. He IS a scientist.

      • Michael C

        He has his MS in Biology.

        …from an unaccredited “creationism” company.

        And I said that he worked at the California State University-Northridge as a part-time lab tech.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          He wouldn’t be able to join the societies he has if he was not accredited.

          “Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and anMS in Biology (parasitology), under Richard Lumsden (Ph.D. Rice and Dean of Tulane University’s graduate program) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there.”

          • Michael C

            He wouldn’t be able to join the societies he has if he was not accredited.

            Do they use accrediting agencies in your country? It’s unclear whether you understand what the word “accredited” means.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know how academia works in your own country, so I wouldn’t lecture someone from elsewhere about that.

      • Reason2012

        Mike likes using the No True Scotsman fallacy – the only ones who are “real” scientists are those who believe in fish to mankind evolution.

    • Jargonaut

      You poor old bored thing.

  • Reason2012

    Evolutionists claim that populations of fish evolved over generations eventually into amphibians (animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish). Since they claim their beliefs are science, ask evolutionists to show what they say happens: an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. So science really falsifies the anti-science fish to mankind belief system. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact. The fact that they will rabidly attack scientists that find facts that refute their anti-science fish to mankind belief system is just more proof of it yet again.

    Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen, and they will rabidly attack those who do not get in line with their agenda, even getting them fired.

    • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

      Sorry, but evolution is observable science. While fish do remain fish over generations, we do see speciation to the point that they can no longer breed.

      • Reason2012

        If it is, then you will have no problem showing the observation of populations of fish evolving over generations eventually into amphibians instead of only reasons to believe it happened.

        • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

          Well actually, the fossil record shows that fish were present before amphibians as they are in the lower layers.

          • Reason2012

            Just because one fossils is “older” than another does not mean “this evolved into that” – circular reasoning.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Its not circular reasoning. Observing the fish in the lower rocks shows that they were there first. Then we see specimens that have gills and every stubby legs (transitional forms). As we work upwards, we find creatures with no gills and longer legs that are more suited for land, indicating that there must have been adaptation to land at some point which allowed them to come up from the sea, since we do not find land animals prior to this. Thus it is logical to conclude that species mutated over time to adapt to the land based environment and set up house. Things get more complex the further up you travel, so its logical that things evolved over time to become more complex.

      • Guest254

        Which would lead to extension, so how are they evolving?

        • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

          I would take a biology class if I were you because it seems that you don’t understand how evolution works. Speciation occures after many generations of mutations. One example is the yellow bellied three toes skink, which seems to be transitioning from being an egg layer to giving live birth. Please note that this scientific prediction was made decades ago based off of fossil evidence that amphibians slowly evolved into mammals and reptiles. The three toed skink is an example of this as it is taking the first steps in developing a system like the mammalian placenta. Also, this species shows that specimens in cooler regions have a more stable body temperature, which is associated with mammals, while the three toes skinks in warmer regions are still strictly exothermic. Here is an example of observable science.

          • Guest254

            You stated that they could no longer breed, so how are they surviving or evolving. And none of this observable data has been observed through nature. Mostly done in labs where they try and cross breed species.

  • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Ground breaking scientists have always faced this type of persecution. Look what they did to Galileo, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Barry Marshall.

    • Reason2012

      It shows how anti-science fish to mankind evolution is: their acolytes have rabid hatred for anyone that points out simple facts that refute their mythological anti-science fish to mankind belief system.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

    Well done CSUN, the settlement was a small price to pay to jettison a young earth, creationist like Mark Armitage from your staff. This is a good lesson for all of us, anytime you see Liberty University on a resume, run!!!

    • Nidalap

      Run indeed! I see you instinctively went with the language of cowardice. A logical choice in this instance…

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

        Correct, it’s the only logical choice when faced with the pseudo-science sold by young earth creationists to a small group of highly gullible christians. It is based in nothing more than their religious belief and has nothing to do with actual
        scientific research.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      You’re scared of science, aren’t you James? You’re probably scared of math, logic, and anything to do with the real world, too.

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

        Everyone, except a small number of highly gullible christians, knows that the pseudo-science sold by young earth creationists is based in nothing more than their religious belief and has nothing to do with actual scientific research.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          That’s completely false. Even evolutionists and secular scientists admit there is no proof for evolution. The late Sir Fred Hoyle, by no means a Christian, admitted such, as did the late Dr. Colin Patterson. The greatest scientific advancements have been made by Creationists.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

            It doesn’t matter what you chose to “believe”, facts are facts. Very few “evolutionists and secular scientists” admit there is no proof for evolution. You are only able to name two people, Fred Hoyle who was an astronomer and Colin Patterson who specifically said “because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth … a world-wide flood … or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. … I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of ‘quotable quotes’, often taken out of context”. Are you really that clueless?!?

            Then you make this wild claim “the greatest scientific advancements have been made by creationists” let fail to support it with even a single example.
            It’s hard too do, but you are an even bigger joke than young earth creationists. Thanks for the laughs!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly, James – facts are facts. It doesn’t matter what YOU choose to believe.

            I choose to remain on the side of science with the likes of Newtwon, Damadian, Faraday, et al.

            You choose to remain on the side of racists, bigots, and fairy tales, which is what evolution is built upon.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

            Ha ha ha…Fred Hoyle, Colin Patterson, “Newtwon”, Damadian, and Faraday. Please stop, it literally hurts laughing this hard at you!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You clearly don’t know who those men are or you wouldn’t be laughing.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

            You should be embarrassed that your education is so limited that those are the best five names you can come up instead of highlighting your ignorance publicly. But it’s no surprise that it’s people like you who end up as young earth creationists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I am sure I have more education than you do, James. 🙂 In fact, I’m sure you have no science education because you didn’t even know what those names represent. 🙂

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

            I’m sure you are quite proud of that “science education” you received from from some place like Liberty University.

            Everyone knows those names you list “represent” the ramblings of a desperate, delusional creationist and nothing more.

            It’s just a simple fact that in the second edition of his book Evolution, Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context because creationists lack scientific research to support such
            theories as a young earth … a world-wide flood … or separate
            ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution
            by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists.

            Are you still too embarrassed to say what they represent to you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, I have only had secular education. I started university at the age of 14.

            The list I gave were scientists that I studied in early science education. 🙂 Everyone should know them. 🙂

            Yes, Dr. Patterson was NOT a Christian. I told you that. However, the quote to which you are referring calls back on specific instance of a remark he DID say (it’s on tape) and does not discount the myriad of others he made about his doubts about evolution.

            As far as the others go, they have all made very important discoveries in the world of science. Pity you didn’t know that.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

            Patterson specifically discounts the things young earth creationists like you choose to believe just like the vast majority of scientists do.
            That leaves you in a tiny fringe minority of people who chose to believe in a pseudo-science and who build museums where you can walk with the dinosaurs just like jesus did.
            While you still make vague assertions like “they have all made very important discoveries in the world of science”, you remain too embarrassed to even list a single accomplishment that is relevant to this discussion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already told you that Dr. Colin Patterson was not a Young Earth Creationist. My point is that he pointed out flaws with evolution. He said it couldn’t be proven and that it had holes in its theory. He said this more than once.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

            Not only was Patterson not a young earth creationist, he openly mocked the beliefs of people like Mark Armitage in his books. You’ve already made it clear that your only point is that you have five people who you claim each attempted to doubt the theory of evolution in some way. Not exactly the strongest of arguments. The rest has been you babbling vaguely about great each of them are/were and strange bragging about how great your secular “science education” was.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly. I already told you that about Dr. Patterson. My point was that Dr. Patterson, a non-Young Earth Creationist, disbelieved the theory of evolution.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

            It’s always funny to run into someone who actually thinks scientific theories such as evolution are something you “believe in or not”. It’s clear that secular “science education” that you like to brag about hasn’t served you very well.

          • Kurt Froehlich

            “vast majority”
            “fringe minority”
            Need to study up on logical fallacy, Jimmy Boy.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

            I understand that descriptive phases like those can be too complex and complicated for certain types of people like you.
            Kurt Froehlich made the news as the guy who the state of Ohio permanently revoked his medical license for repeated instances of sexual misconduct including one case that resulted in a criminal conviction.
            Is that you pervy boy?

  • Reason2012

    Human beings read, write, talk in countless languages, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more, and:

    Our ancestors were supposedly apes, so that means they are claiming populations of apes could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly reptiles before that, so that means they are claiming populations of reptiles could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly amphibians/frogs before that, so that means they are claiming populations of amphibians/frogs could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly fish before that, so that means they are claiming populations of fish could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    This is what they call “reality”.

    Behold the anti-science mythology of fish to mankind evolutionism.

    • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

      You clearly don’t understand evolution.

      • Reason2012

        Feel free to point out ONE detail I got wrong, and prove it’s wrong. Every time I call evolutionists out on it, they either vanish, or end up proving what I said is 100% accurate of their beliefs.

        • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

          First of all, amphibians do not have the capacity to read and write, at least on this planet. They simply have type 1 conscienceless, the ability to feel, eat, touch, heart beat etc. We have the reptilian brain which allows us to feel, touch, heartbeat, etc as well. The limbic brain developed in the first mammals and is type 2 conscienceness. This piece can record memories and patterns, can discern agreeable and disagreeable events and situations, and pack behavior (this trait may be found in certain dinosaurs) Then the neocortex, which we humans have, allowing us to imagine, predict the future, study consciences. The neocortex has allowed humans to develop civilization. What we find as we go back is that the brains of former primates were not as complex. The further back in the fossil record we go, the less advanced the brain. Humans have all the brain functions that the lesser animals from reptiles to mammals have and then some. Also, humans carry the genetic code for feathers, scales, and gills. This would indicate that over time that things changed and evolved, losing some traits, while gaining others, and ultimately coming to what we see today. Since humans carry the genes of feathers, scales, and such, it is only logical to conclude that at one time in the distant past, our ancestors were something else.

          • Reason2012

            “amphibians do not have the capacity to read and write, at least on this planet.”
            I didn’t say modern amphibians – why be dishonest? Yet evolutionists claim populations of amphibians from the past ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into reptiles, then some populations of reptiles from the past ‘evolved’ over generations into mammals, including eventually apes of the past, then some populations of apes form the past ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into human beings. Or, as I said, that they claim populations of amphibians COULD learn to read, write, speak in countless languages, read books, publish them, pass laws and more, all if you just “give it enough time / generations”. So thank you for reinforcing that what I said about what evolutionists claim is 100% accurate, although they don’t like to admit it because it shows others how ridiculous their anti-science fish to mankind belief system truly is.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            I didn’t reinforce what you said, I clearly refuted it so stop trying to sound academic when your not. They never claimed that amphibians could or couldn’t learn to read and write, so you are the dishonest one. What I showed you is that a cold blooded creature can adapt to maintain an endothermic temperature which is a potential transition from a reptile/ amphibian to a mammal. Look up the definition of evolution, my statement clearly fits. No evolutionary biologist has claimed that reptiles or amphibians can learn to read or write. Maybe on another planet where the environment is totally different, but not ours. Evolution does not say that something will learn to read and write and make laws through mutation, it says that there is descent with modification. You clearly do not understand this concept.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

    Don’t worry everyone, Mark Armitage already has a new job at the newest
    center selling the beliefs of creationists. He is leading the tours
    where you can walk with dinosaurs just like jesus did.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    Sorry, but dino blood was high in iron, and when mixed with hemoglobins creates a type of natural preservative. Soft tissue was discovered decades ago, so no, evolutionist are not on the run to find explanations, they’ve had them for years.