Posted on 04/01/2009 10:38:11 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The 'Mystery' of Octopus Fossils
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Around 150 years ago, Charles Darwin asserted that “no organism wholly soft can be preserved.”1 He concluded this based on the assumption that fossilization required long periods of time.
The reality is, however, that fossilization must occur rapidly, at a faster rate than the specimen would decay. Darwin’s belief in vast geological ages, borrowed from Charles Lyell and perhaps from his grandfather Erasmus, led to his misinterpretation that fossils form slowly and gradually. Since Darwin’s time, however, many organisms that were “wholly soft” have been found preserved and fossilized, and by far the best explanation for their formation is not through slow and gradual means, but rapid and catastrophic ones.
Although extremely uncommon...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Just when you think that God may have lost his sense of humor, He inspires Brian Thomas, M.S.* to pen another page turner for ICR.
Thanks for the ping!
Maybe they were on Viagra.
This article should have been published 150 years ago when it wouldn’t have been so ridiculous.
Even as a conservative Christian, this seems a bit loopy.....soft tissue preservation doesn’t disprove evolution any more than similar genetics and body parts PROVES it.
“Around 150 years ago, Charles Darwin asserted that “no organism wholly soft can be preserved.”1 He concluded this based on the assumption that fossilization required long periods of time. “
We have learned alot in 150 years. Darwin’s assertion was based on the info he had available at that time.
So, what about the content of the article?
Keep up the good work!
So this proves the earth is not 4.5 billion years old?
Ridiculous.
==We have learned alot in 150 years. Darwin’s assertion was based on the info he had available at that time.
He based it on his materialist/unscientific assumptions at the time.
Thank you! A little encouragement goes a long way :o)
Interesting. Attack the messenger.
Now, there's a new and innovative approach to useful discussion.
Do soft organisms exist as fossils? If "yes," is the process understood?
Sarcasm works best in discussions of political matters.
Just sayin...
It’s a good thing other scientists have continued the work and we’ve learned a lot in the last 150 years. You know, as opposed to many here who would have us bury our heads in the sand since all the answers to all the questions in the universe can be found in the bible. No need to try to find information out for ourselves.
An explanation that has yet to be observed or repeated by anyone.
I suppose creation scientists are busy in their labs working on this phenomenon at this very moment.
This is the subrhetoric that Clive Ethan Osgood was talking about. Argue what’s in the article. What the writer did say is all dating records based on the notion that fossilization takes a long time are not as air tight as you evolutionists would have us believe.
What about it? It’s silly to take a poke at evolution based on a comment of Darwin. The theory has “evolved” since his time based on observation.
You can’t use the “observed and repeated” argument as an Evolutionist, with any intellectual honesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.