Soft Tissue Fossils

Fossils, fossils, fossils!

Tim-Evanson-https://www.flickr.com/photos/23165290@N00/9327198272/

There is just something about fossils that captivate the imagination. We make movies about them, write books about them, and search deep into the earth to find them. The most obvious, and exciting, fossil to find is a dinosaur. However, dinosaur fossils make up a very small fraction of the fossils found.

So today I’m going to talk about a completely different type of fossil. Soft tissue fossils! Not the soft tissue found inside dinosaurs, although I would love to go over that with you friends, perhaps next Fossil Friday. Today I want to talk about the type of soft tissue fossils that leave behind the patterns, and even on some occasions color pigmentations, of the creature fossilized.

A Little Skin: A largely intact dinosaur mummy, named Dakota, was found in the Hell Creek Formation of the Western U.S. in 2007. Some soft tissue from the long-necked hadrosaur was quickly preserved as fossil, such as the scales from its forearm shown here.
Tyler-Lyson-Associated-Press

The soft tissue of an animal, once dead, is the quickest part to decay. For these fossils to have been preserved the creatures must have been rapidly buried. Why is this a problem? Evolutionism needs the layers in the rock to have been laid down slowly, this is the basis for the belief in millions of years. In the places where we see these soft tissue fossils, the layers can not have taken hundreds, or thousands, of years to accumulate over the dead animals. If that was the case, we would expect to never find soft tissue, jellyfish, octopus, or squids fossilized.

Many secular scientists are now admitting that fossilization does not take millions of years and that fossils need to be buried quickly. These secularists are usually referred to as ‘neo-catastrophists’. The assumption then is that rather than one big flood, there were many small floods that created the fossils we see today. In this, the debate between evolutionism and creationism has the same evidence, a similar conclusion, but a difference in world views.

This is one of the reasons I wrote about Dr. Jason Lisle’s excellent book to help the Christian understand how to debate the world views. You can check that blog out HERE. I hope that you are blessed by these small examples of how we can confidently stand on Gods Word, even in a 2 Peter 3 world. As always, beloved, be good Bereans and study to show yourselves approved.

Advertisements

Author: lnhereford

I am a Christian, wife, mother, and homeschooler currently traveling the United States with my loving husband and darling daughter!

5 thoughts on “Soft Tissue Fossils”

  1. “Many secular scientists are now admitting that fossilization does not take millions of years, and that fossils need to be buried quickly. These secularists are usually referred to as ‘neo-catastrophists’. The assumption then is that, rather then one big flood, there was many small floods that created the fossils we see today. In this, the debate between evolutionism and creationism has the same evidence, a similar conclusion, but a difference in world views.”

    It’s not a difference in ” world views”; it’s a difference in looking at ALL the evidence and saying that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Just because a fossil formed relatively quickly doesn’t mean that it’s not a few million years old.

    Your “similar conclusions” aren’t at all similar! Lots of small flood events over millions of years are completely different from one Noah sized event!

    Like

    1. I could equally say that you could look at ALL the evidence and conclude the Earth couldn’t possibly be 4.5 billion years old. This was my point, the evidence creationist and evolutionists view is the same evidence. However, we interpret it differently based on our world views.

      The conclusion that fossils are clearly created by flood like catastrophe is agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Not the exact same, but yes very much so similar.

      Lastly, my point is not that the fossil itself is not millions of years old, but that it did not take millions of years to become fossilized as previously thought by evolutionist, and still taught in most text books. The idea that each layer in the rocks took a long period of time to form, slowly covering the remains of animals, is the bases for evolution. Now we have seen, with observable science, that fossilization does not take long periods of time, but can happen very quickly. We also see that the fossils in the rock layers must have been buried rapidly, not slowly. When you couple this with the amount of carbon 14 being found in these rocks there is simply no longer any reason to give the dates of millions of years to these fossils. If they were millions of years old they would have nothing to date, no decay should be left. The only way secular scientists were dating the fossils to begin with was based on what rock layers they were found in. They also date those rock layers based on the fossils found in them, this circular reasoning is not scientific.

      So, to sum this all up, these fossils are found with testable amounts of carbon 14, with clear evidence of being buried and fossilized quickly, in rock layers not laid down in long periods of time. The only difference in the conclusion of how this happened is the opinion of one large flood or many smaller floods. If this is not similar, please explain to me how it is not.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s