Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RoadGumby

Sorry, but GGG´s contention is *indeed* that it wasn´t fossilized. It´s central to his conceit.


82 posted on 11/11/2009 12:12:57 PM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]


To: Natufian

Sorry, the article des say ‘fossilized’ and says that if a Completely fossilized item were ‘demineralized’ it would all dissolve (Sinceit would satrt out ALL Mineral).

But the demineralization left behind soft tissue, because while fossilized, it was not completely so.


88 posted on 11/11/2009 12:20:47 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: Natufian
Sorry, but GGG´s contention is *indeed* that it wasn´t fossilized. It´s central to his conceit.

Nat, You have comprehension problems. The bones were 'fossilized' AND there was still soft tissue that was well preserved inside the fossil. When the minerals were removed, the soft tissue was left behind. Is that so difficult to understand?

Typical evo trying to understand science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmsuYeztVbs

252 posted on 11/13/2009 6:45:54 PM PST by Tramonto (Live Free of Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson