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

Skip to comments.

Fossilized Brain May Give Paleontologists Headache
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 7-25-14 | Brian Thomas

Posted on 07/28/2014 9:10:12 AM PDT by fishtank

Fossilized Brain May Give Paleontologists Headache

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Who has ever heard of a fossilized brain? Few would expect such a discovery, yet it looks like that's what researchers found inside a Stone Age skull from Norway. If so, it would confirm a published creation prediction and challenge many evolutionary timescales.

Ten archaeologists have been digging out fossilized human remains from a fjordside location called Brunstad, an area that encompasses two Stone Age human encampments.1 The scientists' findings include Norway's oldest unburned skeletal remains and a skull remnant with an unexpected attachment.

University of Oslo archaeologist and Stone Age expert Gaute Reitan told the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation NRK, "Inside [the skull] is something rather grey and clay-like. You can just think for yourself what that may be."1

The team thinks they have uncovered brains inside the partially buried skull. If further research verifies this, how could brains last that long?

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: brain; creation; fossilized
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: MrB

A lot better than mine! They’re supposed to have had crooked and broken yellow teeth. And those were the good ones! The ones that hadn’t fallen out yet! Lol.


41 posted on 07/28/2014 1:22:57 PM PDT by ETL 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Who’d want it?!It spent too much time up his orifice,the methane gases pickled it.


42 posted on 07/28/2014 4:21:43 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ETL 2

Get ‘em out of here,they’re not house broke.


43 posted on 07/28/2014 4:24:33 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Can you imagine the world we might be living in if secular scientists didn't always get it wrong? We might have ways to... prevent them from getting polio. Oh wait...

Jonas Salk wasn't a secularists, he beleived there was a God. Nice try though.

44 posted on 07/29/2014 7:03:08 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: angryoldfatman
Regarding my post #12, please note I also mentioned the Warm Mineral Springs brains which were actual tissue - not fossilized in any way.

I only mentioned the Amber DNA as a humorous pull on your chain. I'll remember the sarcasm and/or irony tag next time.

Were you aware of the DNA work done on the Kennowick Man bones? Successful results for $400 when done by the local officials. Fedzilla bureau-scientist spent some $10,000 and got invalid results.

45 posted on 07/29/2014 8:24:57 AM PDT by GladesGuru (Islam Delenda Est. Because of what Islam is - and for what Muslims do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Jonas Salk wasn't a secularists, he beleived there was a God. Nice try though.

Most scientists believe in God. You don't know that the ones who made the Norwegian discovery don't also. The question, when you talk about "secular science," isn't whether the scientist believes in God, but whether they only seek conclusions that validate their beliefs--as ICR does--or just do science. By the way, this is what Salk had to say about evolution: "Of course evolution is real. DNA mutates, and that makes evolution one of the most powerful forces in nature. But who set evolution into motion? Can't God have done that? I can't stand it when the ideologues take over on something like this."

46 posted on 07/29/2014 10:45:35 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
The question, when you talk about "secular science," isn't whether the scientist believes in God, but whether they only seek conclusions that validate their beliefs--as ICR does--or just do science.

Yeppers, secular scientist never seek conclusions that validate their beliefs.

47 posted on 07/29/2014 6:33:38 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Jonas Salk wasn't a secularists, he beleived there was a God.

Psyops. Whoever controls the terms controls the debate. Using "secular" as if it was synonymous with "atheist" is a gambit to create polarization, in support of false dichotomies.

48 posted on 07/29/2014 6:53:46 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
I think the line was...

Dr. Frankenstein: Igor, a little help with the bags!

Igor: Sure! You take the Blonde, and I'll take the one in the turban!

Young Frankenstein Bloopers(3:19)

49 posted on 07/29/2014 7:09:04 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative

Dang it! Shoulda read ahead...


50 posted on 07/29/2014 7:11:35 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Whoever controls the terms controls the debate.

True, so there is no reason to let liberals control the debate. So I will rephrase your statement to reflect the truth: " Using "religion" as if it was synonymous with "Biblical" is a gambit to create polarization, in support of false dichotomies.

51 posted on 07/29/2014 7:12:43 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: celmak
True, so there is no reason to let liberals control the debate. So I will rephrase your statement to reflect the truth: " Using "religion" as if it was synonymous with "Biblical" is a gambit to create polarization, in support of false dichotomies.

That's quite a bucket of emotional nonsense you're peddling there. Has the smell of flame bait to it.

52 posted on 07/29/2014 7:21:32 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
That's quite a bucket of emotional nonsense you're peddling there. Has the smell of flame bait to it.

And an ad hominem is a sure sign an argument has been lost.

53 posted on 07/29/2014 7:31:46 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: celmak
And an ad hominem is a sure sign an argument has been lost.

That sounds like a prelude to declaring victory and running away.

54 posted on 07/29/2014 7:35:52 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
That sounds like a prelude to declaring victory and running away.

No, I'll walk away victorious. Sleep well.

55 posted on 07/29/2014 7:40:10 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

And I’ll let you have the last word tonight to.


56 posted on 07/29/2014 7:41:32 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Yeppers, secular scientist never seek conclusions that validate their beliefs.

Sure, sometimes they do. And then their errors get caught by other scientists when they try to replicate the results. That doesn't happen with ICR-style "science."

57 posted on 07/29/2014 7:56:08 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

It’s OK, I still got a laugh out of it!

CC


58 posted on 07/29/2014 8:41:02 PM PDT by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Sure, sometimes they do. And then their errors get caught by other scientists when they try to replicate the results. That doesn't happen with ICR-style "science."

Please give an example of a secular scientist's error(s) getting caught by other scientists when they tried to replicate the result(s).

59 posted on 07/30/2014 7:24:57 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Just last month:
Japanese scientist Haruko Obokata, who is accused of fabricating stem cell research, has agreed to retract the papers she published describing her work, according to news reports.
The two papers, published in January in the journal Nature, described a new way to turn mouse blood cells into stem cells, which are cells that have the ability to become any type of tissue, by bathing the cells in acid. The researchers called the technique stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency, or STAP.
However, the findings sparked widespread skepticism in the scientific community, and several labs reported they were unable to replicate the results.
http://www.livescience.com/46101-stem-cell-scientist-agrees-retraction.html
60 posted on 07/30/2014 11:00:52 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

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