Posted on 12/11/2009 8:38:32 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Researchers have described remarkably well-preserved tissue discovered inside a salamander fossil. The fully intact muscle tissues also had blood-filled vessels, and they had not been mineralized like most fossils. This “fresh meat” find is depicted as the “highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”[1] But given its assigned age of 18 million years old, it shouldn’t be there at all...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
In other words, a more direct translation is that the term is that they share a common genetic ancestor. Like the phrase "the earth brought forth", the meaning could be a simple way of describing a far greater process than the limited language of the early writers could describe or understand.
Buck, my assertion is that the Bible is true. Period
The article describes something which supports the idea of Creation. Sorry that upsets you. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable.
You care nought for truth. It is your only purpose to discredit.
If I recall correctly, last quarters FReepathon was one of the fastest concluding. It seems to ebb and flow, but has always met its goal.
Adaptation is not evolution. When all is said and done, a walrus will not change to a bird. Dogs adapted from a common ancestor, but ALL are still dogs, none are now goats.
Evolution is a non-starter.
“The article describes something which supports the idea of Creation. Sorry that upsets you. “
The Flying Spaghetti Monster also supports the idea of creation. The bible is equally diminished by that association as by the lie in the present article.
Why is your faith so weak?
The last one went ok, but the one before had lasted essentially all quarter. Its only been the past year that has been difficult.
Oh, you mean this article where they state:
”We noticed that there had been very little degradation since it was originally fossilised about 18 million years ago, making it the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.” Emphasis added
You know, where they state it was fossilized 18 million years ago?
And I'm the idiot? Methinks you're projecting. Best to go back and brush up on your reading comprehension...
Yes, you certainly are an idiot, for pressing your word parsing deception here.
Fossil simply means preserved ancient life, or evidence thereof. Quit trying to stretch things for your ignorant convenience.
It said it was fresh salamander tissue.
Well, then, since you are now the sole arbiter of the meaning of words, I guess we’ll defer to your immense power and inscrutable judgment!
Carry on then... Project away!
Oh, and Jesus loves you... All others know you’re an idiot!
Mummies of animals, even frozen as the mammoths were is rare, exceedingly rare. And the salamander wasn't frozen. So different preservation circumstance, different outcomes?
The same sort of question could be asked about why if tissue millions of years old can be preserved and found why would tissues just thousands not be more common than it is.
And yes the assumption was made that the fossil was millions of years old:
“(PhysOrg.com) — Scientists have extracted organically preserved muscle tissue from an 18 million years old salamander fossil. The discovery by researchers from University College Dublin, the UK and Spain, reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that soft tissue can be preserved under a broader set of fossil conditions than previously known.”
“...soft tissue can be preserved under a broader set of fossil conditions than previously known.”
OR perhaps the fossils are not as old as thought.
Apparently, he’s taken a mind-altering antibiotic today...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2399414/posts?page=199#199
And how is that any different from what the evolutionists do on these threads?
One can't accuse someone of lying unless they know what the truth is. Nor can one tell others that they are wrong without a standard to measure against.
Some evos say that science is about the truth, present their theory as fact, and then go on to tell others that they are wrong.
When it gets down to it, evolutionists have a theory that they think is well supported by facts and that's all they can lay claim to. Anything else, like it's true, is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one..
Creationists support their position with the contention that the one who created it all and created from the dust of the earth and created in kinds, told us what He did.
One view is deduced. The other is by testimony. In either case, no one was there to see it.
Yes, as in not edible.
When you find a fossil definition which includes the concept of fresh meat, let me know. Until then... it’s lying.
You’ve never accepted defeat gracefully, and this is no exception!
From the introduction:
Herein, we describe, to our knowledge, the first record of organically preserved musculature including its sedimentological context. The muscle's gross morphology resembles that of an extant analogue, but this, alone, is not the basis for our conclusion. Remarkably, despite some degradation before fossilization, diagnostic macromolecular ultrastructural features have been retained.
From the materials and methods:
(a) Fossilized muscle tissue
Samples of muscle tissue identified under a binocular microscope were picked from the specimen using sterile scalpels and needles. For scanning electron microscopy (SEM), samples were not prepared further; they were mounted onto aluminium stubs...
And the conclusions:
4. Wider implications
The detail revealed by TEM imaging unequivocally identifies the organic remains as fossilized musculature from the salamander itself. This therefore confirms, for the first time, to our knowledge, that the high-fidelity fossilization of extremely decay-prone tissues as organic remains is not only feasible but can occur in the absence of protective encapsulating agents such as bone (in the case of the bone marrow, McNamara et al. 2006) and amber.
Nowhere in the paper are the terms "Fresh meat" used. They state throughout that it is fossilized muscle. Therefore BTMS* Lied.
“Yes, as in not edible.”
Not even with barbecue sauce....
I like you.
Defeat, by you? I will concede you have the edge in verbosity and anger (careful, might cause you cancer), but in terms of facts and logic? You're woefully lacking...
These are fossils; apparently you cannot accept the fact of the article where it states as much. You do know that sulfur is a mineral, don't you?
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.