Read the original news release from the scientists
and you'll see that ICR completely mis-states what is found, and misleads their readers about what is claimed. No surprise, really...
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?
posted on 12/11/2009 8:52:59 AM PST
(Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
posted on 12/11/2009 8:57:54 AM PST
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
I have read many articles and papers on this find, and it seems their is a bit of confusion about what to call “fossiled” any more, seeing how they are finding so many “fossils” with soft-tissue still intact. The bottom line is, in the case of this supposedly 18 mya salamander, they have found “organically preserved” muscle tissue, which is not fossilized in the sense the fossilization has been traditionally understood. Do you consider organic muscle preservation, complete with blood vessels inflowed with blood to be “fossilized”???
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson