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
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”?
I am a Roman Catholic, as I have stated many times and also on this thread. Evolution is perfectly compatibile with the RC Church.
If this thread supports faith, then it belongs in the religion forum, not in news/activism.
I am not throwing stones. I am pointing out that the article linked to and the OP (GGG) by posting the link, are lying and that lying is breaking one of the ten commandments. Isn’t lying to support ones faith an even bigger sin?
You guys just love to lurk around, waiting for a chance to make “old fossil” salamander cracks, doncha?
2. My belief system has NOTHING to do with my conservative values. Get that? NOTHING.
3. With the protection of JimRob and the Mods, the creationists here can basically say anything, bigoted or not, call anyone anything they wish, free from any admonishment at all.
When conservatism is measured by what you define religiously, you have lost credibility to engage and include others conservatives, and only find yourself and others like you, alone, and without enough votes to influence any election.
That is why conservatives lose.
And I can tell you one more thing. The longer this is allowed to go on, the more that will find other venues to express themselves.
Considering the vitriol contained within this thread, I may just crawl back in.
That works too but unlike some others I try not to make it too personal. :)
I had no idea that RC faith would say that it is now accepted that man is not a Divine Creation, that man is just an accident evolved from apes. I had no idea you belonged to that belief, I apologize for my insensitivity.
I however believe what the Bible says, that God created the earth and all on it. The animals reproduce ‘after their kind’, not ‘and make other kinds’.
Beware of false doctrines, the Word of God does not lie and is sufficient.
No, but you do use this as a measure of conservatism.
It’s comfort food for camels.
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.