Skip to comments.Fresh Salamander Tissue Found in Solid Rock
Posted on 12/11/2009 8:38:32 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
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.
Don’t waste the bandwidth. Everyone else gets it....
It seems to be going around the FRevo/DC crowd.
Must be contagious.
Do you mean the original paper or BTMS*’s lying interpretation of it?
Fossil simply implies ancient preserved life. They plainly state that it is not mineralized.
Debate is one thing, but going all RACIST??
C’mon now.. grow up.
The original. The only lying interpretation is yours.
YOU JUST SAID ALLAH AND YAHWEH (JEHOVAH) ARE THE SAME!
WE SHOULD GROW UP???
“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.
Just what is racist here you idiot?
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?
You might want to go back and check that post again...
Oh.. and even if you type louder, it still won’t be true.
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.
I’m not going to repeat your RACIST post... that’s up to the ‘powers that be’ to straighten out.
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?
“Fossil simply implies ancient preserved life. They plainly state that it is not mineralized.”
They do not state that.
Your false pride and faked indignation will be your downfall. God is patient.
Is this REALLY what JimRob wants for his site?
This is EXACTLY the type of thing the DUmmies look for from FR and exploit as radicalism on the right.
But I suspect that reason will not win out in the political arena if our religious beliefs are going to be the measure of our conservatism.
“Your false pride and faked indignation will be your downfall.”
BS. You’re a fraud.
Aren’t you the one claiming to work for some company doing minor lab work? If so one would think you knew what a fossil is at the very least.
But even 2 is yards ahead of 5 as the Darwinism of the Dustbins is being revealed to be.
You’re a complete liar and moron.
Nothing I have ever posted is racist. You obviously don’t even know what simple words mean.
You ARE a lib. Racist? where did that come from? Oh, yes, that is how the race baiters respond to terms such as a Tar-Baby.
Race card (however inappropriate) played in effort to silence. T^ext book Sharpton/Jackson technique.
People point out an obvious lie propagated by the OP and the article he linked to, as is the style for the OP and we get called names for pointing out his lying.
No, he told xcamel to take a hike if she didn't like it here, but obviously she has no respect for him or anyone else.
Are you sober today? Your posts have been even less coherent than usual.
C'mon, just come out and admit your real agenda, namely: you don't want the Christian Right--a major pillar of the Reagan Coalition--to have a place at the table within the conservative movement, thus insuring that the GOP always loses.
Xcamel doesn’t know what a tarbaby is (she is one too).
She doesn’t understand any debating slang.
Just a stinking lib by any other name.
Cry to daddy again when everyone doesn’t agree with you.
This is getting to be a tired tactic. Grow some skin. Have more faith in your own belief or is it so weak that it would be destroyed by some name calling?
JR has more important things to do than to run here and shut up his crying kiddies.
I was thinking the exact same thing myself!
More stupid BS from you? I'm shocked!
Address this crap to xcamel, she is the one that 'cried.'
What do you know of Faith?
What IS your Faith?
You enter a thread about information that SUPPORTS Faith and begin throwing stones. Then you have the audacity to question anothers Faith? You and xcamel belong more at DU than anywhere else.
“Look there is a post we don’t like!!! Let’s go try to shut them up!!” Re-examine yourself and go to where there are more like you. (LGF? DU? SanFran?)
Xcamel is an admitted, documented, FR-hating troll. xcamel brags over at DC that she hates this place, claims that the only reason why FR lets creationists post is because of money, has nothing but disdain for FRs posting policies, ignores repeated warnings to avoid Creation/ID threads, she regularly trashes FR on other sites, she brags about how her deliberate disruptive behavior has yet to get her banned, and she promises to increase her disruptive behavior in direct proportion to what she is allowed to get away with on FR.
What you want is your way. Period.
Our conservatism is based on your belief. Period.
If we don't think as you do, drink the same kool-aid as you do, we are not conservatives. Period.
The Christian Right is the one of the foundations of the conservative principles, but not the only one.
We, as conservatives LOSE, because the left uses the radicalism you display to paint all conservatives with the same brush.
Also, if you check our respective posting histories, you will notice that creationists do not follow around LGF-liberal-xcamel from thread to thread trying to instigate flame wars...it is quite the other way around.
“Their use of the term “fossilized” simply means encased in rock in this case.”
You’re going to have to do better than that. Find a source where the person who has examined the specimen says in simple language that they are the actual cells that were alive when the dinosaur was alive.
Is it painful going through the mental contortions to twist the original article so severely to reach what you (and ICR) do?
READ THE SOURCE ARTICLE. It's not intact soft-tissue; it's fossils with the soft-tissue detail preserved! Typically when most organic matter is fossilized, most of the fine, cellular-level details are obliterated. What's exciting is that we've found a few that had such details intact IN THE STONE OF THE FOSSIL.
Seriously, just go and read the source article; I even quoted AND BOLDED the relevant portion for you. It's a complete fossil, no soft-tissue at all, and never claimed.
Your whirlwind contortions notwithstanding...
not just your agenda, to shut down free-will and thought.
Yet, what is the level of 'conflict' seen in a Creationist thread, vs that in an evo thread? As a rule, Creationists won't waste much time there. But, let a Creationist thread be posted, (especially by GGG) there will be a wild-n-wooly free for all led by the usual group of malcontents..
The attempt to silence (think liberal projection tactics here) are those of evo-types disrupting in the Creationist thread, not vice-versa.
IF you enter a Creationist thread, surpise! you may find someone that disagrees with your evo ideas. Funny how that works.
Sad that a belief in the Bible is called 'radicalism', especially by someone that professes to be 'Conservative'.
Oh please. We don’t follow your fellow evos around trying to start flame wars, you follow us. We don’t force anyone to read our threads, but for some reason you feel compelled to read them. We don’t claim you have to believe biblical creation to be a Christian, but your fellow disruptors constantly claim that’s what we believe. We don’t go running around calling everyone liars who we disagree with, but that is your fellow evo-atheists’ standard tactice. Get real.
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)
Your posts are in News/Activism.
If the scientists believed the fossils were just some thousands (I am not of the YEC persuasion) of years old the novelty of such finds would be far less but since they assume millions of years of age and thus preservation of actual tissues improbable if not impossible, something extraordinary is called for.
No one really know how long soft tissues can be preserved but what has been found is not ho-hum it died last year either.
So possibly the fossils are much, much less than millions of years in age and tissue preservation even at this lessor age is not common.
Does the preservation then, lend its self to an age of millions of years and some sort of truly extraordinary explanation or to just thousands of years with a rare (you need a microscope) but not so extraordinary explanation?
How is twisting the words to meat your agenda “Defense of Religious Freedom”?
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.