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

To: kimtom
kimtom: "The possibility that fossils could be younger cannot be allowed. yet fossilization (mineralization) does not take long at all (decades) (longer for more complete)."

Under some conditions, fossilization can be delayed for many thousands of years and longer.
For one famous example, consider mammoth carcases found in Siberia.
For another, Neanderthal bones with some intact DNA.
For another, consider insects preserved in amber -- which became the basis for the fictional story of Jurassic Park

Yes, those minute amounts of alleged dinosaur soft tissue seem now likely to be that, but is not yet definitely proved.
No DNA has been recovered, and so other possibilities still exist.

But if we assume these minute tissues are dino-remains, then they would first suggest that other conditions can also preserve small amounts of organic material much longer than previously expected.

So your basic assumption -- that organic material must always fossilize or quickly decompose -- is, well, unwarranted.

117 posted on 04/30/2013 1:51:16 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK
“...is, well, unwarranted....”

Well, you are wrong.

If you take presumptuous conclusions, you will
always be wrong.

Every example you gave uses basic assumptions.
(bias)
Every scientist is biased.
(Fact)
Everyone is going to take evidence and sift it thru their world view.
(Bias)
Yes, I am Biased. I prefer to accept God's explanation.
And I will Disagree in most of what you said.
The evidence can support Creationist claims.
(yes, some things are difficult to explain, with our limited knowledge, but Atheist admit the same).

123 posted on 04/30/2013 4:34:42 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK
“...So your basic assumption — that organic material must always fossilize or quickly decompose — is, well, unwarranted....”

where did I say this??? “always” “quickly”?

Bias and assumptions.
we all make them.
However, again 1000 years+ is a long time.
It doesn’t take long for fossilization.
The longer it did take (in a given case) the less likely soft tissue will remain. (bio-degradation).

The chances there is more “soft tissue” within most fossils can indeed exist. But who is going to test to see?

Although evolutionist will poo poo the implications, soft tissue argues a more “recent” event. (supports that hypothesis better). It is Bias to assumme a fossil is millions and hundreds of millions of yrs old.

evoulutionist scientist have been known to alter, fabricate, or destroy evidence that contradicts their beliefs. (notice I did not say all)

125 posted on 04/30/2013 5:14:41 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | 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