Here's an electron micrograph of the connective soft tissue of the body wall of a supposed "Jurassic" squid.
Posted on 08/19/2009 9:40:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Maybe it is Black Gold, Texas Tea. Well, the first thing you know Ole Ceph’s a millionaire.....
“organic matter”
“Dr Wilby, who led the excavation, said: “We think that these creatures were swimming around during the Jurassic period and were turned to stone soon after death. It’s called the Medusa effect.”
“turned to STONE”
So they reconstituted the fossilized “ink” with a liquid, and drew the picture. This is being completely misconstrued! It was STONE!
“The find was made at a site which was first excavated in Victorian times where thousands of Jurassic fossils with preserved soft tissues were found.”
Preserved soft tissues... these were stone also?
“It would seem that finding unfossilized soft tissue supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is becoming quite commonplace”
No it isn’t. So far it hasn’t ever happened. If you read this article, you’d have understood that they aren’t saying anything like you claim. This is just like your previous prevarications on other “soft tissue” posts.
Leave science to people who are qualified, and leave the lying to “creation science” - it’s all you folks know how to do.
“Preserved soft tissues... these were stone also?”
Do you know anything about fossils? Seriously. Do you know anything about them?
“Preserved soft tissues... these were stone also?”
Yes. Stone. “Soft tissues “ turned into stone. By conditions at that time that quickly covered the squid so that the soft tissue did not rot away. The “Medusa Effect.
http://tinyurl.com/lfyhb2
TURNED TO STONE.
“So they reconstituted the fossilized “ink” with a liquid, and drew the picture. This is being completely misconstrued! It was STONE!”
Friend, at best it is being completely misconstrued. These “creation science” people don’t know what they are talking about. They cannot understand that when soft tissues are fossilized, this is an unusual thing, and worthy of note.
Instead, they prefer, most likely because of their God-given ignorance, to assume that a fossil of soft tissue is actual soft tissue. Don’t be alarmed, the “creation science” cabal cannot be educated on this or any other issue - they are dumb as a box of soft-tissue fossils.
Let them come to the conclusion that all their “research” must come to - that “Therefore Genesis is proven correct”.
150 million.
Right.
sure.
It would be good enough for me, too, if the Bible actually said or even implied that the earth was 6,000 years old. However, it doesn't.
Not only that, but God's revelation to us through his wonderful creation shows us that the universe is about 14.5 billion years old and the earth about 4 billion years old.
I'm sticking with God's revelation instead of a man-made age for the earth.
Here's an electron micrograph of the connective soft tissue of the body wall of a supposed "Jurassic" squid.
You are right! The specimens are just very interesting rocks!
From my link:
“Rapid fossilization of fishes and other animals in the Lower Cretaceous of the Chapada do Araripe, north-east Brazil, has preserved the most delicate structures known in the fossil record. Gills, muscles, stomachs and even eggs with yolks have been found. Interestingly, the material is not particularly rare, and specimens can be purchased from your local rock shop.”
“your local rock shop.”
“The Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that is good enough for me.”
So, you believe it without all the made up science of the “creation science” movement? If so, you are something that all of “creation science” can never be - honest and faithful.
The Flood, you know it’s true.
The 6,000 year old number is from Bishop Ussher. The Bible does not say how old the earth is.
Which makes the 6,000 year old number non-scriptural.
Naughty boys, adding something to the Bible. Tsk, tsk.
The Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that is good enough for me.
______
Can you point me to chapter and verse wherein this is stated unequivocably?
Actually it has, though it certainly isn't normal. Read this amazing story from Discovery Magazine.
Other than that minor issue, I do agree with you that a 6,000-year old universe is not supported by the Bible or by the scientific facts. One can a single study or a string of studies based upon the same supposition, but when so many experiments performed by such a wide variety of people in so many scientific disciplines lead to the same results, those results cannot honestly be disputed.
There is no reference to the age of the Earth in the Bible.
The figure was derived by a Bisop Ussher, around 1800(?) so it is a fairly recent development in Christian theology.
Believers in this number used to be called “Ussherites”.
There is no reference to the age of the Earth in the Bible.
____
Which is why I asked Steven for chapter and verse, because there isn’t one. I was kinda hoping to hear it from him, though.
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.