Arguments So Bad, It’s Hard to Turn Away: Mark Armitage

{The two videos linked in today’s blog entry are NOT parodies. Nothing has been altered in any way. Mark Armitage is a real person. Nobody is portraying a creationist stereotype just to get laughs. I’m telling you, this is the real thing…or I’m not Professor Tertius!}

You may know Mark Armitage from the lawsuit he filed after losing his lab technician & microscope maintenance job with California State University. Lawyers don’t rate his chances positively. After all, he often told students that he had evidence of dinosaurs living contemporary with humans just a few thousands years ago–and liked to argue that his “dinosaur soft tissues” finds couldn’t have survived for millions of years. If you haven’t seen any of the media coverage, here are some summaries:

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

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/mark-armitage-update-05-nov-2014/

Now Mark Armitage wants crowd-funding help to set up his own “dinosaur soft tissue laboratory” so that he can overthrow The Theory of Evolution and all of that pesky evidence for many millions of years.  I kid you not:

It is hard to rate really bad pseudo-science on even an exponential scale so I’m not even going to try.  And even if you can’t justify wasting your time watching his plea for cash to help him forge ahead in the Young Earth Creationist cause, I guarantee you will be thoroughly entertained by his whining and ranting against Dr. Mary Schweitzer and everybody else who is trying to figure out the natural processes which made what was apparently 65 millions years of preservation possible:

I considered posting a compilation of his “logic bloopers” as an outline–but like a really really bad joke-teller who is so bad on stage that it is almost good, you’ve got to actually see for yourself how Armitage “explains away” the possibility that iron could have played a role in the preservation.

OK, I can’t resist. Here’s just a few of the logic bombs you’ll find on that page (in the video and/or in his comments under the video):

1)  If iron could somehow preserve soft material from a dinosaur for millions of years, cryogenic human body-freezing companies would already be using the process in order to preserve the bodies of rich people.

2) If the preservation process actually worked, it would already appear in the microscope instruction manuals he consults.    [You bet!  Someone, even though scientists don’t know exactly what the process is or how it works–much less, know how to do it for themselves in the laboratory–non-scientists or the general public would already be using it.]

3) Mark also argues that if iron could play a part in tissue preservation, then Detroit wouldn’t have trouble with cars rusting out!

4) If the iron in blood could contribute to preservation, one could visit Civil War battle fields and find lots of preserved bodies!

If I’m not mistaken, this guy has either finished his PhD or will be defending his dissertation soon.  Either way, one wonders how he got through legitimate degree programs and did graduate work while suffering such cognitive dissonance.

Of course, it is also possible he is simply giving the Young Earth Creationist audience–and potential crowd-funding donors–exactly what they are looking for: idiotic but sciencey-sounding “arguments” which supposedly let them laugh at the real scientists. But I’ll let you decide that one:  Is it IGNORANCE or is it just PATHOLOGICAL LYING about the Science?

I honestly don’t know.  But I do know this:  I just won a dinner bet when Mark announced that he was CENSORING/DELETING all of my counter-arguments and evidence I posted in the comment section below his JurassicWorldLies.  I’ve yet to encounter a Young Earth Creationism activist who could debate more than a round or two without running out of arguments (while having zero evidence) and resorting to the creationist-wildcard:  Censorship.

And that’s why I have often said that “creation science” scammers and propagandists aren’t just dishonest and ignorant of the evidence. They’re cowards.

I’ll let Mark Armitage display his exceptional debate skills in his own words:

“If Professor Terdius’ comments were not pablum puke I would keep them up for all to see. They were deleted because he contributes nothing to science.”

Isn’t it interesting how every “creation scientist” thinks himself clever in turning “Tertius” into “Terdius”?  And I never knew that all Youtube comments had to contribute to science!  (I wasn’t trying to contribute to science–although by exposing Mark Armitage I may have managed to do just that. Yet, if nothing else I thought I’d let Mark know that science actually exists and that he should check it out sometime. Oh, well!)

Meanwhile, having been inspired by his iron-causes-rust level of logic failures, I’ve suggested to him the following:

Firemen must stop pouring water on fires! Don’t you know that there’s dangerously flammable HYDROGEN in that water?!

And if salt were actually NaCl, we couldn’t be shaking it onto our food because the sodium would burn us and the chlorine would poison us! And seeing how that’s not happening, I’ve proven that salt doesn’t exist!

And so now you understand why iron could never be involved in any compound associated with the preservation of ancient tissues. (Warning: If all of this made perfectly good sense to you, you just might have an exciting future in “creation science!”)

By this point, if you didn’t take the time to view his JurassicWorldLies, you are going to think that I’m pulling your leg.  But I’m not!  Promise.  And I’ve only scraped the surface of the Mark Armitage world of pseudo-science and quasi-logic.

Meanwhile, I’m finishing up my refutation of Einstein’s theories of relativity. How did I refute Einstein? Easy! I learned the perfect argument format from Mark Armitage: If Einstein actually got his science right, then we would have been visited by time-travellers from the future by now. But we haven’t, so relativity is a lie from Satan!  

Impressed? So am I.  I hope I didn’t go too fast for anybody.  (Mark, I typed that sentence very very slowly because I know that you don’t read all that fast. You’re welcome.)

As readers have already anticipated, I’ll be waiting to see whether Mark Armitage or Professor Tertius will be winning a Nobel Prize first.  So stay tuned!

And if I ain’t tellin’ the truth, then my name isn’t …..

{Enable echo chamber sound-effect, maximum reverb.}

……Professor Tertius! ! ! ! ! ! !
…….Professor Tertius! ! ! ! ! ! ! 
……..Professor Tertius! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

………..Professor Tertius! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
………….Professor Tertius! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

_____________________________
(c) 2015. Professor Tertius & the Bible.and.Science.Forum at Gmail.com.
All rights reserved. Email us at Gmail.com address for permissions on reposting and publication.

Advertisements

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “Arguments So Bad, It’s Hard to Turn Away: Mark Armitage

  1. peg

    Bravo! Professor Tertius. Bravo! Keep up the good work.

  2. Remo

    Your name is not Professor Tertius. You hide it and pretend that the creationists are out to get you then expect to be taken seriously. I’ve never seen Professor Turdius used by any other creation scientist, how about documenting that? You complain about his bad logic but you use personal attacks and bad logic of your own. BTW, I’ve seen you called Decimus which is fitting, since you’re not third you’re lucky to be tenth. Nice rant puking up pure hate.

    • Remo said:
      >”I’ve never seen Professor Turdius used by any other creation scientist, how about documenting that?”

      I did. (Face-palm)

      So you don’t believe Mark Armitage posted what I quoted. OK. Ask someone familiar with using the Internet to show you how to go to his video and find the comment section below the video. It is very easy to do!

      Your “insightful” complaints are very entertaining. Keep ’em coming, Remo!

      I’m sure everybody would love to hear your explanations of why you don’t think the critique of Mark’s pseudo-science and illogical arguments are valid.

  3. Does Remo ever manage to construct any sort of coherent argument? I like a good YEC pout and whine just as much as anybody else. But it would be nice for a change to actually see a creationist actually come up with some kind of argument beyond “I hate anybody who doesn’t agree with my Bible interpretation” and “I’m going to CENSOR YOU and delete all of your posts from my forum and then declare victory!”

  4. Mark Armitage has a kind of “logic” that is unbelievably lame. Look at what he said in reply to an self-declared atheist’s comment:

    ***If you were a real Atheist you would laugh at me the “village idiot” (in your corrupted mind) and you would not even be commenting on my work. The problem is my work BUGS you, so you are not a real Atheist. Enjoy your 15 minutes on my channel, but be prepared for all your comments to be thrown into the trash by me.***

    So, according to Armitage, “real atheists” laugh but NEVER COMMENT under funny videos. And if someone is annoyed by the fact that pseudo-science is fed to the general public by ignorant young earthers and anti-evolution nutters, they couldn’t possibly be atheists. No wonder these nuts are unable to follow the evidence to where they understand why evolution is easy to see all over the place, wherever organisms are surviving and changing.

    As always, the mark of the creationist is the threat to CENSOR.

  5. Remo

    I guess you can’t read, and have other people write for you, huh? I SAID OTHER I wasn’t talking about Armitage, Turdorifficus. Try to keep up I’ll type slower next time. So WHO ELSE has said it professor not to be taken seriously?

  6. After asking
    “Does Remo ever manage to construct any sort of coherent argument?”,
    I guess that would be a no.

  7. Does Remo think Mark Armitage has a trademark on the bathroom humor? I suppose each time a yec-yucker posts the turd name they think they were the first to think of it.

    I wonder why Armitage is so worked up about Dr. Sweitzer. I’ve read her paper and she’s just trying to figure out how the preservation mechanism might be explained. I guess Armitage doesn’t understand that even if the soft tissue was young, scientists would still want to know what preservation methods were at work. Scientists are a curious lot.

    Maybe Mr. Armitage is just worried that scientists will explain one more preservation process and keep on embarrassing creationists. He’s already ****-hurt about losing his job and no scientist cares what he thinks. And he knows it. They’ve got labs and he doesn’t. No wonder he’s begging for money.

  8. Oh. Sorry about the language in choice of word.

    • “Oh. Sorry about the language in choice of word.”

      No worries. Saito already got it. He’s from Indonesia and he consistently and almost instinctively crosses out anything that an admin would be in trouble over there in regards to Muslim sensitivities. (So if anything has any sort of sexual immorality connotations, its gone, even if most Americans might not see the connection. Indonesia tends to be very strict about even slang that might possibly be associated with same sex activities.)

  9. Pingback: Stupid Things Young Earth Creationists Say | Bible.and.Science.Forum

  10. Colton Rodoski

    Oy vey.

    He says no blood would be able to reach the bone tissue inside, so iron could not preserve it? What rubbish. In Mary Shwietzer’s paper on a role for iron in preserving tissues, they state explicitly:

    “In life, blood cells rich in iron-containing HB flow through vessels, and have access to bone osteocytes through the lacuna-canalicular network [70,71]; after death, HB could cause localized, haeme-based radical cross-linking in dinosaur tissues. Moreover, HB-derived haeme, previously identified in dinosaur bone [72], has recently been identified in Miocene mosquitoes, supporting the durability of this prosthetic unit [73].”

    Citation:http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741

    Yes, iron CAN reach the inside of the bone matrix and preserve the osteocytes. It has DIRECT ACCESS to them.

    That was his best argument, really. And it took me not five minutes to pull up the paper and discredit it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s