"Fresh crow flesh found in ancient asphalt!!"
Posted on 12/11/2009 8:38:32 AM PST by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”
—Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203455/posts?page=78#78
Ping!
So, is it capable of being cloned? It may have been a “baby” and the full adult was 36 feet long!................
bookmark
P4L
No...its not 18 Million years old.
Where’s the required Helen pic?
Better source here:.
”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.”
In other words, these were soft tissue fossils, not "fresh meat".
Tastes like chicken!
Have you been leaving your tissues laying around again?
"Fresh crow flesh found in ancient asphalt!!"
The fossil structures, however, have been reinterpreted as the remains of recent biofilms that lined, but did not infill completely, voids inside the bone, thus generating hollow structures with a similar geometry to blood vessels and osteocytes..
Again, not "fresh meat" but fossils of soft tissue.
Tampa with mountains in the background?
I have read several articles and papers on this find now, and they all say the flesh was “organically preserved.”
FTFA:
”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.”
Emphasis added. All the tissue was fossilized, including the blood; what the excitement was about was the fact the cell walls were fossilized in 3 dimensions, so that we have an accurate "stone" replica of the original cell structure.
A bit different than ICR and you are trying to pass off, isn't it?
Are you OK?
PS Supposedly ancient organically preserved soft tissue discoveries are known as “fresh meat” finds.
Tempe, Az.
I’ve been on that road, trust me, the asphalt is really, really ancient.
Now that’s just plain down right funny
Tempe?
Every post, every time.
check the posting history...
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:godgunsguts/index?tab=articles
That bird’s gonna need an aspirin.
TEMPE; as in Arizona.
Not arguing there, but "Organically Preserved" is not "Fresh Meat". It means that organic minerals replace the original structures in the fossilization process. Most fossilization is formed when inorganic compounds (such as calcium phosphate) replace the original structures, however in the case of a few of these soft tissue fossils, they are replaced by authigenic minerals, for example calcium is left, or charcoalification where the carbon remains. In this particular case, based on one of the links ICR gives, what was actually found were microscopic fossils of carbon which first covered then replaced the soft tissue structures. Just because something says it is "organic" doesn't mean it is living tissue, it is simply a carbon compound.
BTMS* and GGG once again caught breaking one of the commandments.
This is fossilized muscle tissue, which is obvious from the photo on the press release linked by PugetSoundSoldier.
GGG, just admit you parrot what BTMS*(one of the finest science writers of our age- according to you) says and have no idea if it is correct or not.
Get new glasses, It’s Tempe.
Why you should not post from ICR and expect to be taken seriously. Pay attention to the last sentence particularly.
“ICR claims it “met or exceeded” the 21 Standards of Certificates of Authority. In fact, ICR did not meet several of those standards which was the basis of the THECB’s refusal to grant the Certificate of Authority. Three of those unmet standards were faculty qualifications, the curriculum, and academic freedom of the faculty and students.
ICR’s claim that it suffers from “anti-accommodational evolution-only-science enforcement policy practices” is frankly absurd. ICR has every right in the world to teach its Creationist pseudoscience to paying students and can continue to do that, so that falsifies its claim of illegal victimization by the State of Texas. It has no right, however, to demand that its graduating students be awarded a Texas-certified Master of Science degree, since under no definition of science or practice of legitimate science education in the United States is ICR’s curriculum “science.”
http://pandasthumb.org/
so, was it painful getting it in there? ; )
Maybe there are still living dinosaurs inside the hollow earth near the top of the world, just south of the North Pole.
WHAT could they possibly be finding????
This needs to go in religion. There is nothing here that is about “defense of religion”.
from the article you quoted:
“According to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood.”
That means it is not petrified, does it not?
Why do you continue to break one of God’s Commandments even after overwhelming proof to the contrary?
Trick is, (misleading title) that is **is** fossilized, but not in a traditional manor.. much like the famous (infamous?) hadrosaur ‘leonardo’...
My goodness girl, how long have you had that cold?
This-is-not-a-biker-thread ping!
: > )
“According to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood”
I don’t know it sounds like it is still fleshy but very tiny little pockets and parts.
Speaking of small minds...
think dessicated/mummified under unusual circumstances.
From the source: ”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.”
So quit being stupid. It’s not “fresh tissue” its not even tissue - its a fossil.
So you and all your “creation science” fawning fan club can put your “fresh meat” analogies away. A fossil is not meat.
Specific evidence please.
BTW...Are you saying that the soft tissue of the T. Rex and Hadrosaur were also replaced by exogenous organic minerals?
And you merrily follow the talibani creationists right back to the 7th century, and straight to gates of hell...
But, I-75 doesn't run through Tempe, but it does go through Tampa.
As I said, there seems to be a bit of confustion as to what to call these specimins. But “organically preserved” muscle tissue, complete with blood vessels infilled with blood, is not what is traditionally understood as “fossilized.” In fact, these kinds of soft-tissue finds in supposedly “ancient” “fossils” are typically referred to by paleontologists as “fresh meat” finds.
But you are free to bury your head in the sand as many times as you wish. Unfortunately, no matter how many times you pull your head out, the soft-tissue will still be organically preserved soft tissue.
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.