My comment was about the fossil find of soft tissue becoming more common.
I didn’t make that clear.
Neither did the article make clear how the soft tissue was preserved. It said that it was *organically preserved* and then it made some comment about organic tissue being preserved, so there was some ambiguity there.
However, I would certainly not call it *fresh*. In this case, I do have to say that the adjective of *fresh* is somewhat inappropriate. There ought to have been a better choice of words so as not to leave the impression that it was undecayed or unpreserved in any way..
The ICR article didn't but if you scroll to the bottom of that article under their references, one of those articles goes into detail about it. (the link I posted in #12)
“My comment was about the fossil find of soft tissue becoming more common.”
Just to clarify, you do understand that “fossilized soft tissue” is still a fossil - and not actual meat.
The folks at ICR, and GGG don’t seem to get that.