Fresh Salamander Tissue Found in Solid Rock

ICR News ^ | December 11, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Researchers have described remarkably well-preserved tissue discovered inside a salamander fossil. The fully intact muscle tissues also had blood-filled vessels, and they had not been mineralized like most fossils. This “fresh meat” find is depicted as the “highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”[1] But given its assigned age of 18 million years old, it shouldn’t be there at all...

[editor-surveyor]

"This is a fossil with organic (carbon containing) materials, vs the normal minerals. Same situation occurs when fossils are found in coal."

As usual, you're a liar. There is nothing in the article to support your weird contra-factual interpretation. - Catch up with the truth, and learn to live with it.

[metmom]

Don’t waste the bandwidth. Everyone else gets it....

[metmom]

Touche’

[metmom]

CAN EVERYONE SEE THIS....CAMEL THINKS CHRISTIANS ARE THE SAME AS MUSLIMS!!

It seems to be going around the FRevo/DC crowd.

Must be contagious.

[Wacka]

Do you mean the original paper or BTMS*’s lying interpretation of it?

[editor-surveyor]

"Is that why they still call them 'fossils'?"

Fossil simply implies ancient preserved life. They plainly state that it is not mineralized.

[xcamel]

Debate is one thing, but going all RACIST??

C’mon now.. grow up.

[editor-surveyor]

The original. The only lying interpretation is yours.

[scottdeus12]

YOU JUST SAID ALLAH AND YAHWEH (JEHOVAH) ARE THE SAME!

WE SHOULD GROW UP???

[RFEngineer]

“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.

[editor-surveyor]

Just what is racist here you idiot?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Okay, let's say for the moment that this "fossilized soft tissue," whatever that means exactly, is evidence that the salamander isn't as old as we thought. Brian writes, "Organic materials such as muscle tissue decay in days or hours under ambient conditions, as anyone can observe by leaving a piece of steak out in the open." Does that mean the salamander fossil must be only days or hours old? If not, what mechanism was able to preserve the tissue past days or hours for [however old Brian thinks it is], but not for millions of years?

It seems to me there's only two choices: either these soft-tissue fossils are as old as scientists think are but, as the original story says, "soft tissue can be preserved under a broader set of fossil conditions than previously known." Or, they are so young that no extraordinary explanation is required for why soft tissue is preserved. If that's the case, why doesn't every fossil have soft tissue inside it? Why is it so rare--why does it require microscopes to find--if the simple explanation is that it's not very old?

[xcamel]

You might want to go back and check that post again...

Oh.. and even if you type louder, it still won’t be true.

[Sopater]

In other words, these were soft tissue fossils, not "fresh meat".

You're speculating, mnehring. The article that you linked to says "According to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood." It doesn't say infilled with organic minerals creating a stone replica of blood. These articles clearly go much farther than lauding the details that have been captured in the fossilization process. They are clearly indicating the preservation of soft tissue.

You're allowing your faith to get in the way of the facts.

[GodGunsGuts]

NotLOLing, xcamel. You likened FR’s Christians to the Taliban several times upthread...and you did so after specifically being told by the mods to knock it off on previous threads.

[xcamel]

I’m not going to repeat your RACIST post... that’s up to the ‘powers that be’ to straighten out.

[scottdeus12]

You’ve been exposed.

You claimed Allah and Yahweh are the same.

Your words, not mine.

No wonder you trash Christians like you do. This your own personal jihad?

[latina4dubya]

ping

[RFEngineer]

“Fossil simply implies ancient preserved life. They plainly state that it is not mineralized.”

They do not state that.

[xcamel]

Your false pride and faked indignation will be your downfall. God is patient.