Posted on 12/02/2009 8:28:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Although creation-based organizations have reported for over a decade on the technical scientific journal articles published about soft tissue found inside dinosaur remains, mainstream media outlets have largely been silent on the subject. But a recent segment that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes finally broke the news to a broader audience. The soft tissue issue may be gaining more traction, and even “may be changing the whole dino ballgame,” according to correspondent Lesley Stahl.[1]
The program is currently viewable online at the CBS website. In a field test demonstration to determine whether a dinosaur fossil was real bone, and not bone replaced by minerals, Stahl touched her tongue to it...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
That is a question that science cannot answer as it is a matter of faith, and based on the supernatural
As I am sure you already know science only deals with the natural world.
However nice try at the straw-man
I’d be careful of definitions. These were not “soft” “tissues” as in they didn’t cut into a fossil and find these “soft” (to the touch) tissues....they were fossilized “soft-tissue” (tissue other than bone) that had to be demineralized in an acid to dissolve the rock. Had they simply cut into a fossil and found actual “soft” to the touch “soft tissues” of the likes they’re finding once they dissolve the rock, I’d be more surprised.
I would be surprised to find that Schweitzer wouldn't know that some rocks will stick to your tongue or wet lips. On the farm in Iowa, where there used to be an ocean....evidenced by oceanic fossils in the soil....they called 'em "lip rocks" 'cause they'd stick to your wet lip.
not asking “science” to answer
asking you, a creature, to answer
I do not discuss my religious beliefs here.
You’re contending that Australopithecus was an ancestor of Homo Sapiens?
That is what the evidence shows.
Source?
Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens. This is a beautiful series of transitional fossils.
When you review the available evidence the transition is quite clear.
Thank you.
Since the transition is so slow and gradual it is possible that some of the first Homo habilis did live at the time as the last of the Australopithecus. For example I am a descendant of my maternal great grand-father and we both lived at the same time.
The soft tissue thing is one slice of bread on what I term the basic evolutionist time sandwich; the other slice of bread is the Haldane dilemma. They need quadrillions of years, and they only have a few thousand.
Bingo, another person gets it... Midrashim and other literature and artwork indicate that there were a number of leftover dinosaurs walking around at a time just prior to the flood. The true main age of dinosaurs would have been several thousand or a few tens of thousands of years back, but not tens of millions.
From the title, sounds like a new type of toilet paper.
“Get the one that is soft as a dino’s behind. Get Dinosaur Soft Tissue. At local stores everywhere.”
I forget--what's your explanation for why, if dinosaurs are no older than, say, mammoths, we find entire mammoth bodies preserved, along with their stomach contents, while we only find bones and fragments of fossilized soft tissue for dinosaurs?
Frozen, weren't they? I don't believe the controversial dinosaur soft tissue was discovered in such a state.
I have tried to look for demineralization of a fossil but to no avail, could you please direct me to your source?
Once again xcamel, if it offends you, stay out. Post your evo articles, chances are, I’l stay out, as to me they are BS.
Have a nice day.
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.