It's muscle tissue.
”We noticed that there had been very little degradation since it was originally fossilised about 18 million years ago, making it the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”According to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood.
That seems to be what he means by fresh, as in remarkably well preserved. What do you take his meaning to be - fresh like a package of meat in the supermarket? Your objections don't address the point of the article. You seem to be arguing over semantics. Trying to say creationists are misleading seems to be a longstanding tactic of evos. I find evos to be misleading.
And my “looks old” I mean massive mineralization, where mineral rock has replaced bone. We don't find modern species mineralized to the same extent.
It seems you don't know the difference between apologetics and science, nor does it seem that you care to know. Typical.
That's not what "fresh meat" usually means. If I go to the "fresh meat" section of my supermarket, I don't expect to see "remarkably well preserved muscle tissue." Brian and his ilk know this, and they want you to think the soft tissue that's been found looks like something you might eat. I've read anti-evolutionists here refer to the fragments of collagen that Schweitzer found as "steaks," so the technique is having the desired, deceitful effect.
Trying to say creationists are misleading seems to be a longstanding tactic of evos.
Yes, pointing out anti-evolutionists' repeated, often-intentional errors is something evos have been doing for a while now.