The ICR article has more images on their site.
The ICR article has more images on their site.
.
read later
These scientists should be embarrashed to promote this theory with such weak evidence. They think preservation is due to radical formation but do not test whether radicals are being formed. They didnt check for characteristic molecules produced by radical reactions. They used conditions that were inappropriate for the test. The formation of radicals formed by iron requires oxygen and water, they ran tests in an oxygen free environment and water is incompatible with fossilization. The iron molecules in the tissue would eventually react with oxygen and become oxidized (rust) and become inactive thereby allowing decay. IMO their theory doesnt stand up to even even cursory examination.
Thomas has written well and often on the subject of what scientific evidence shows and does not show about dino tissue preservation but he too makes hos own leaps of logic and interpretation. That dino tissue might under very rare circumstances be preserved for thousands of years it does not follow that the earth can thus be only thousands of years old or show that the earth could not have existed without life for some long period of time.
Proving the evolutionists are in error does not prove the young earth creationists correct.
Some people just don’t grasp what a million years is.
Just by looking at soil erosion rates, were the Earth just 10,000 years old, we would no longer be able to farm due to the near total loss of soil.
Shorter Brian Thomas: “The researchers didn’t actually take a blood-rich bone, bury it so that it fossilized, and then come back millions of years later to see what was left, so ICR and its fans can safely ignore their work.”