“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.”
So what is in the “fossil record” if not fossils?
Why do you think they don’t call it the “fresh meat record”?
Quit being so stupid about this. They are fossils, there is no fresh meat. Quit listening to GGG, he is leading you astray. Use the highly-evolved, Darwiniacally-enhanced, non-fossilized brain matter that God gave you.
Read the paper - they plainly state it’s a fossil. Why do you think they call it a fossil? Is it because it is “fresh meat”?
GGG is lying to you. His ego-driven hyper-posting spree of the past 6 months is nothing but a pathetic act - and you, and many other folks reflexively believe in him, and his Fanciful GGG Notion that faith needs to be proven by science.
He is a liar, and you are smart enough to see it if you just open your eyes.
My comment was about the fossil find of soft tissue becoming more common.
I didn’t make that clear.
Neither did the article make clear how the soft tissue was preserved. It said that it was *organically preserved* and then it made some comment about organic tissue being preserved, so there was some ambiguity there.
However, I would certainly not call it *fresh*. In this case, I do have to say that the adjective of *fresh* is somewhat inappropriate. There ought to have been a better choice of words so as not to leave the impression that it was undecayed or unpreserved in any way..