One can’t take the text of Genesis 1 seriously so long as it is taken literally, because the literal reading ignores the actual literary genres and the origin of the order of events along with the purpose of using that source.
I agree and I actually think my view is the “literal” view (what the text really means) but using that terminology would obfuscate the issue too much.
I’ve run into several articles explaining what “take the text literally” “really means” or “should mean” and I always come away thinking, “Nice object argument, essentially useless”.
But I do like to point out from time to time that what “take the text literally” means in practice, i.e. treating the text as though it was a friend’s great-great-grandfather’s diary of events he experienced, written in English.
Here is a rather lengthy but thorough review article on the subject, referencing Armitage’s research. If too long, at least look at the “misconceptions” listed near the end of the article. Soft tissues in fossil bone
By the way, in googling, I have trouble finding Armitage’s doctorate, though I found some notes that he was a doctoral candidate at Liberty University. Perhaps he has gotten his Ph.D by now, but I could not find it; It does appear he suffered an injustice in the loss of his job as a microscopy technician, though those issues often have a lot more going on than the public record reveals. It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.
1 Like
Small note that Microscopy Today is not actually a peer-reviewed journal:
Although not a peer-reviewed publication, MTO has a strong Editorial Board and a high general standard of material.
Ah I see @Bill_II already mentioned this first point above! I was curious who was on the Editorial Board, as they put through this paper with some rather strong language. I wondered if maybe some other YEC are on the board, but apparently, Mark Armitage himself is on the Editorial Board:
So, without any more transparency, I think we ought to have some questions about the publication process here. What do you think about this? Will you at least correct your original post to note these things @adamjedgar ?
4 Likes
- This should really give a thrill to Armitage fans:
- About | Dinosaur Soft Tissue Research Institute
- Don’t miss the “Journal Articles” and “Videos” on the index page under Articles & Updates.
- Mark H Armitage Youtube Channel
- Creation Ministries International - Mark H. Armitage Profile Page
- "Mark H. Armitage -
- Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS 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.
- Mark grew up in a military family and lived in Venezuela and Puerto Rico for 15 years. He became a Christian when he was a college senior, studying plant pathology at the University of Florida, and his family withdrew support from him.
- His experience in the business sector includes Olympus Corporation of America and Carl Zeiss. In 1984 he founded a microscope sales and service company and has been in business for 29 years. He was awarded a US patent for an optical inspection device in 1993.
- Mark’s micrographs have appeared on the covers of eleven scientific journals, and he has many technical publications on microscopic phenomena in such journals as American Laboratory, Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin, Parasitology Research, Microscopy and Microanalysis, Microscopy Today and Acta Histochemica, among others. His career in teaching at educational institutions includes Master’s College Azusa Pacific University and California State University Northridge.
- Mark managed a working electron microscopy laboratory (SEM and TEM) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. In 2003 he moved his laboratory to the Creation Research Society Van Andel Creation Research Center in AZ. His lab is still vibrant and is still producing publications.
- Until recently, Mark served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica.
- He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University.
- Mark’s other unique discoveries include the discovery of two new species of trematodes and the reporting of new hosts for several trematodes. He also discovered short half-life radiohalos in clear diamonds, and the first ever discovery of soft tissues inside a Triceratops horn from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana.
- He is a lifetime member of the Creation Research Society where he has served on the Board of Directors since 2006. Mark is a member of the Microscopy Society of America, the Southern California Academy of Sciences and the American Society of Parasitologists.
- "Mark H. Armitage -
- About | Dinosaur Soft Tissue Research Institute
- Regarding Armitage’s “wrongful termination” :
- There’s more on the web page.
- CreationWiki - Profile for Mark Armitage
That whole paragraph is garbage projecting creationist martyr complex. Cut it out.
Schweitzer’s work was promptly publicized throughout the scientific media space. Her initial papers passed peer review and appeared in reputable journals. The response varied from excitement to skepticism, given that biologists are critical thinkers who do not ground their research on some uniform statement of faith. Her reports were groundbreaking, and she herself has stated that critical appraisal was entirely appropriate. It is due to such secondary peer review that scientific results eventually become established and we can be confident in their validity. She is heavily cited. She made professor, which is tough to get in paleontology, and has actively supervised graduate students.
Schweitzer never went underground at any time; I have no idea what you are talking about and it seems you do not either. She is a recognized scientist producing a steady stream of carefully documented research. As for Armitage, the video is right - he is a fountain of sketchy, dubious, and evasive pretense concocted to distract YEC’s from the vast body of evidence.
5 Likes
- Obviously, you would deny that you’re attacking SDAs because–in your opinion–you’re just denying that it’s possible to be a SDA and not be a YEC. But I challenge your claim. .
- Clearly, if I can’t deny you the right to call yourself a Christian, you can’t deny non-YEC SDAs the right to call themselves Christian SDAs.
2 Likes
It was not intended to be an argument, and wasn’t directed at you.
You must have me confused with someone else. I write very little in any forum about theology, unless you mean something like “ethics of theology,” possibly what you call “philosophy.”
When I write about theology, I usually express questions I am wrestling with or attempt to support someone in dealing with their own questions. I am more than willing to question theological conclusions, particularly those that d@mn people for thinking, questioning, doubting, or even being differently. That someone seeks a way to find or maintain faith in God seems the work of the Holy Spirit to me. And if the Holy Spirit will guide believers into truth, then it is clear that God himself doesn’t require us first to grasp all truth, much less Correct Doctrine™, in order to receive his grace. (Even the Correct Doctrine™ I know is also unacceptable to you; so I’m in trouble in that category as well.)
You and I have been over this before. While I am no scientist, I have enough science education and critical thinking skills to understand that what is knowable about the material world is not described in the Bible in accurate terms. They are world-views apart and irreconcilable at face value. Additionally, I reject “bending the truth” about the physical world to support a literalist reading of the Bible – that is, I reject the methods of groups like AIG, which must rely on dishonesty and promote deception (now making a nice bit of cash – and gaining the worldly influence that goes with it – in the process).
I have mentioned to you before that I cannot unknow what I know. And while I understand and empathize with your concerns, I will have to live with the conflicts, what friend refers to as “cognitive dissonance,” as I have been doing for a long time.
I thank you for your concern for the condition of my soul. I am confident that Jesus knows what he’s doing and will deal with me as he sees fit.
4 Likes
In connection with this I will note that so far no YEC has ever come up with an answer to my challenge to show us where the scriptures assert that they intend to teach science.
Just as I reject twisting the text to make it speak in modern Western worldviews.
YEC requires dishonesty about the scriptures; dishonesty about science is secondary.
4 Likes
This is why I keep saying that critiques of creationist research need to stop whingeing about it being “religion, not science” or “introducing religious presuppositions into science” and to stop harping on about methodological naturalism, and to stick strictly to questions of honesty, factual accuracy, quality control, and maintaining adequate technical standards. To be fair, many critiques of creationist research do descend into insult and ad hominem attacks and it is a distraction from legitimate points that can and should be raised about honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information.
7 Likes
Excellent point. With that lawsuit, one could speculate that they may well have had a justifiable case at firing him based on shoddy research and possibly misuse of facilities, but torpedoed their case by making inflammatory comments relating it to religion thereby making it necessary to settle for their insured amount.
3 Likes
Interesting!!! It’s worth some investigation. Don’t know what to think at the moment. But thanks for the info!
Thanks. I just took a not-very-extensive look at this video. Is the name Mark or Michael — or is Mark a pseudonym for Michael in this case? The video cited is obviously not supportive.
1 Like
- Armitage’s name is Mark H. Armitage
1 Like
Thanks Terry. I took a look at some other online info re Mark Armitage. He appears to have personally had a tough time in a couple areas (“…family withdrew support…”) etc. . Appreciate the name clarification.
2 Likes
- Have been having my own difficulties with YEC-ism. To reset my brain, I had to watch:
3 Likes
Far too much evidence supports the fact that, other than the small feathered dinosaurs which are the ancestors of modern birds, no other dinosaurs survived the 65 million year ago extinction event.
Merely supposing that soft tissues remain, unreplaced by water-born minerals, does not imply anything about the 65 million year age of all dinosaur fossils.
When collagen and other soft-tissue remnants are seen in ancient fossils (including e.g. 300,000 year old mammoth bones) the only conclusion that fits all the facts is that conditions prevented the passage of water and minerals into those parts of the fossil. Fossils are the mineral after-effect of water born compounds replacing carbon-based tissues.
More to the point, the DNA within tissues of such age has decayed. Collagens have been analyzed and kinship with modern avian collagens have been found.
3 Likes
This sort of sneering patronizing conversation degrades this site. Piling up negatives has nothing to do with facts and logic. Vitriol clarifies nothing.
Here are the facts, my friend - Genesis chapter one bears scant connection to material fact. It does not need to. And why so? It is God’s great self-reveal as AUTHOR of the UNIVERSE, well and good.
More to the point it reveals God as holy, righteous, intentional, all-creating, and outside Creation itself. The extant pagan belief systems featured explanations of the material reality of earth, sun, moon, seas, and so forth.
Tell yourself why God would divulge His “lab notes” when to do so would have burned up thousands of feet of scroll to explain the complexity of Creation - what modern scholarship has taken the most recent quarter-thousand years to piece together.
The mission of steam-cleaning the image of GD meant debasing and defeating the pagan pantheon of smutty, unreliable, selfish, vulnerable deity-lites, most notably their failure to see the future effects of their “problem solutions.”
That mission is perfected in Chapter 1.
Here is where the assumed material details of Genesis violate Creation: Day One the universe begins as fast featureless water. Day Two the vault of the sky (firmament) divides those waters, with half below the firmament becoming seas and the rest sitting above the firmament, and supported by it. Day Four sees the rest of the visible universe created and set into the heights of the vault of the sky, hence beneath the Day Two waters.
Meanwhile Creation, from God’s Hand and as it still exists today, features Planet Earth orbiting the nearest star. These dots do not connect; therefore any view of Genesis as somehow factual calls Creation a liar.
Verse two grandfathers in the pagan cosmology - waters, firmament, and earth plucked from beneath the waters - for the simple reason that material details were irrelevant against the scope of GD expunging the smut and filth of pagan theology.
But consider that verses 1 and 3, mighty arms of fact cradling verse two, declare that God invented time, space, matter, and light. What caused the universe? Something outside it, not limited to the rules we see such as every effect needs, and has, a prior cause. The universe is the effect of a prior uncaused cause. God is that uncaused cause. God spoke the universe into being. Today our term for that is the Big Bang. Genesis begins with these three verses, two declaring that G*D caused the universe to exist, and verse two that pats the pagan cosmology on the head, like a furry puppy, told to lie down beside the fire. The puppy has no role in human conversation; the pagan cosmology has nothing to do with the actual Creator.
1 Like
HILARIOUS!!! Reminds me of the time when I asked a man what he did for a living!! (Did not know he was crazy!!)
1 Like