Posted on 11/09/2009 9:44:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Nov 6, 2009 — More soft tissue has been found in a fossil – this time in a salamander said to be 18 million years old. The article on PhysOrg called it “the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”
Unlike the previous discoveries of fossil tissue inside bone or amber, the recognizable sinewy muscle tissue was found tucked inside the body of the animal. “The scientists claim that their discovery is unequivocal evidence that 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.”
Were the scientists at University College Dublin surprised by their discovery of this fossil in southern Spain? Yes and no; they acknowledge that soft-tissue preservation is extremely rare, but also think that more is to be found. A new treasure hunt is on. “Using the same sampling methods and high resolution imaging that led to this find, scientists will now begin to investigate existing fossils in national museums and elsewhere across the world, for similar types of soft tissue preservation.” This was not taken as a challenge to Darwinian time scales. The article ended, “further discoveries will help scientists paint a better picture of life on earth since the beginning of evolutionary time.”
Notice that the evolutionists don’t want to tell the truth; they want to paint a picture. Evolutionary time is dancing in the visions of their closed eyes. Instead of seeing the falsification of evolutionary time, they see its vindication – sketched out on the canvas of imagination. View their picture as abstract art of visions and dreams, not as the history of the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
There was indeed a controversy over whether the dino soft tissue was indeed soft tissue. That controversy has now been resolved in favor of dino soft tissue preservation, and, as mentioned above, such soft tissue finds are being discovered on a fairly regular basis now.
But, but, there is no mention of dinosaurs or giant reptiles in the bible, how can they even exist? There has never been a fossil found with butcher cut-marks indicating primitive (before the flood of course) ate them. Since Kosher laws didn’t come into being until after the flood that can’t be the reason.......Its all just too hard to comprehend.........LOL
How old does the Bible claim it to be?
There are indeed descriptions of what appear to be dinos in the Bible.
There has been man footprints and dinosaur footprints found side by side, in Glen Rose, TX.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
Leviathans are ‘large sea creatures’.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_leviathan.htm
Behemoths are ‘large land creatures’.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
Every single story I have read on FR about soft tissue being found in ancient fossils comes from a Creationist site.
This means one of two things.
1. The creationists are the only ones willing to share raw data and let the chips fall where they may.
2. The creationist sites are batsh** crazy.
I’m honestly not sure which is true, but I am tending to lean towards number one at this point.
There is a third option: Other sources are just not being reported on FR.
Just a quickie - what is your opinion on the “fire breathing” description of leviathan?
I watched a program (one of an endless series, it seems) on the Science channel about the purported asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs.
According to the graphics within hours of the hit firestorms spread around the earth burning everything into a layer of charcoal found just above the KT layer.
But, But what happened to the birds and feathery things, and insects? No trees, no food, so what happened to them?
This didn’t seem to a question that merited consideration, unlike the supposed burrowing mammals.
Let’s just say that the evos aren’t nearly as excited to get this story out as creationists are. Initially the evos tried to make a case for dino soft-tissue being an illusion created by contamination. But, this has since been laid to rest, as the following National Geographic article makes clear:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-oldest-dinosaur-proteins.html
I do not know what happened to that post because I seperated my sentences and links. Sorry!
I seem to recall that theory being debunked, no?
Yeah, but I think it was written this morning, despite all kinds of evidence to the contrary. So, it's actually subsequent to your article. Call me a "Young Aritcle Creationist"
You’ve just linked to a soft tissue story that is not a creationist site. Looks like my choice number 3 is right.
Neither side should be afraid of any raw data, and exposes weakness in their confidence in their position when they are.
Wow, you sure are clever. Tell me, do you think evo dating methods that supposedly establish “deep time” are as reliable as the dates National Geographic assigns to its articles? Moreover, do you admit that as hard as the evos tried to make dino soft-tissue look like contamination, it is now firmly established that not only are we finding dino-soft tissue, but that we are now finding it on a fairly regular basis?
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.