Posted on 11/09/2009 9:44:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Nov 6, 2009 — More soft tissue has been found in a fossil – this time in a salamander said to be 18 million years old. The article on PhysOrg called it “the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”
Unlike the previous discoveries of fossil tissue inside bone or amber, the recognizable sinewy muscle tissue was found tucked inside the body of the animal. “The scientists claim that their discovery is unequivocal evidence that high-fidelity organic preservation of extremely decay prone soft tissues is more common in the fossil record - the only physical record of the history of life on earth.”
Were the scientists at University College Dublin surprised by their discovery of this fossil in southern Spain? Yes and no; they acknowledge that soft-tissue preservation is extremely rare, but also think that more is to be found. A new treasure hunt is on. “Using the same sampling methods and high resolution imaging that led to this find, scientists will now begin to investigate existing fossils in national museums and elsewhere across the world, for similar types of soft tissue preservation.” This was not taken as a challenge to Darwinian time scales. The article ended, “further discoveries will help scientists paint a better picture of life on earth since the beginning of evolutionary time.”
Notice that the evolutionists don’t want to tell the truth; they want to paint a picture. Evolutionary time is dancing in the visions of their closed eyes. Instead of seeing the falsification of evolutionary time, they see its vindication – sketched out on the canvas of imagination. View their picture as abstract art of visions and dreams, not as the history of the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Leviathans are whales....mammals that still exist today.
"Behemoths are ‘large land creatures’."
The only reference to a behemoth is in Job 40:15 which is describing a hippopotamus.....mammals that still exist today.
On what basis do you conclude that Leviathan is a whale?
On what basis do you conclude that Behemoth is a hippo?
How can you read Job 41 and not conclude from the description that is isn't? In a region where a variety of whales lived in fairly large numbers in the seas surrounding the middle east why isn't there another reference to or name for the whale?
On what basis do you conclude that Behemoth is a hippo?
How can you read Job 40: 15-24 and not conclude from the description that is isn't? In a region where the hippo lived in fairly large numbers in the major and minor rivers why isn't there another reference to or name for the hippo?
The burden isn't on me to disprove your lunacy, it is on you to substantiate it.
Do whales have a nose that you can put a cord through?
Are whales known to have “fearsome teeth” or “rows of shields” on their backs?
Do whales have undersides that are like “jagged potsherds.”
As for hippos, how many of them have tails that are so big that they can be said to “sway like a cedar” tree?
...and why don’t you read the primary source? She found “fossilized” tissue structures, dissolved the mineral part...that’s “rock”, for the homeschooled, using an acid called EDTA, and what was left was pliable “something”.....a far cry from finding pliable tissues in a fossil...from finding blood cells...from finding skin...from finding squid ink.
Do you need any definitions? Fossilized? Demineralized in an EDTA solution? Need the medical definition of “soft tissue”?
OK, the iron age started around 1000 bc, how did anyone know about or understand iron before the flood (per answers in Genesis, circa 2300 bc). This could not have been written before the flood, iron was unknown and the bronze age was starting concurrent with the flood at 2300 bc.
Therefore, this description had to date to no earlier than 1000 bc and could not be a contemporary account of the creature.
Good night.
“that’s “rock”, for the homeschooled”
Wow could you be any more condescending?
I don’t know the original source. Would you care to share a link?
“Schweitzer was interested in studying the microstructure and organic components of a dinosaur’s bone. All bone is made up of a combination of protein (and other organic molecules) and minerals. In modern bone, removing the minerals leaves supple, soft organic materials that are much easier to work with in a lab. In contrast, fossilized bone is believed to be completely mineralized, meaning no organics are present. Attempting to dissolve the minerals from a piece of fossilized bone, so the theory goes, would merely dissolve the entire fossil. But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.”
From the same article here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm
You are misrepresenting her work. It was demineralized and all the ROCK was dissolved leaving behind what wasn’t rock.
Of course not, so it reinforces the assertion. The other meaning is that, unlike the ox, horse, or camel, it cannot be tamed or subjugated.
Are whales known to have “fearsome teeth” or “rows of shields” on their backs?
There are two major categories of whales, baleen whales and toothed whales. Of the toothed whales the largest are the sperm whale and the humpbacked whale. Both are carnivorous and have "fearsome" teeth. Just ask Capt. Ahab.
Do whales have undersides that are like “jagged potsherds.”
Many varieties of whales ave parasitic isopod infestations (barnacles for those of you in Rio Vista). If you have ever seen one up close and knew absolutely nothing of marine biology you might try to explain it that way.
As for hippos, how many of them have tails that are so big that they can be said to “sway like a cedar” tree?
Have you ever seen a baby hippo follow its mother?
9th generation from Adam worked bronze and iron.
Genesis 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
You failed to put them together, NL. What whale has fiersome teeth, rows of shields on their backs, and an underbelly that looks like it is covered with jagged potshirds?
And I really don’t see how a baby hippo trailing its mother explains bahemoth having a tail so huge that it can be compared to a swinging cedar tree.
Let’s face it, the only animals we know to have existed matching the description of Behemoth and Leviathan are dinosaurs.
The earliest iron artifacts date to about 2,000 BC (4,000 years ago). If the world was created 6,000 years ago in six standard earth days then for iron to have been worked in the 9th generation from Adam it would mean that each generation was an average of 220+ years. This begs the question; is some or all of this allegorical or is it all literal?
My explanation involves contemporaneous animals from the region that match the description very closely. In both cases they are animals that would have been known to the neolithic and bronze aged tribesmen of the region. Your explanation requires suspension of disbelief in order to patch the hole in your Young Earth theory that the discovery of dinosaurs presents. How do you explain that there are no biblical references to either hippos or whales other than these? While you are at it, what is the ancient Hebrew word for "Nessie"?
The other poster said that iron work was unknown before the flood. I was pointing out that the Bible does in fact point out otherwise.
As for the iron artifacts that have been discovered and dated, I didn’t realize that these were the first ever to have been made. I only thought that they were the ones that had been discovered. ;)
“Ping (for obvious reasons)”
My obvious softness and inestimable age?
And damn it, it really HURT when they hacked that sample outta my left @ss cheek!
[ban pit paleontologists!]
Do you accept my timeline with 220+ year long generations as valid or flawed?
Which arguments should definitely not be used?
‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs?
“Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and PLIABLE”
Yup.
Sounds like me, alrighty.
It is scientifically flawed; there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support that assertion.
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.