Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ink found in Jurassic-era squid (150 mya squid "can be dissected as if they are living animals")
BBC ^ | August 19,2009

Posted on 08/19/2009 9:40:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Palaeontologists have drawn with ink extracted from a preserved fossilised squid uncovered during a dig in Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

The fossil, thought to be 150 million years old, was found when a rock was cracked open, revealing the one-inch-long black ink sac.

A picture of the creature and its Latin name was drawn using its ink...

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; creation; evolution; godblessrfengineer; godsgravesglyphs; ifyouknewsushi; ink; intelligentdesign; likeweknowsushi; science; squid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-289 next last

1 posted on 08/19/2009 9:40:48 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Clone him so that I can get some Jurassic calamari.


2 posted on 08/19/2009 9:44:48 AM PDT by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I guess I believe this, but I am amazed this could last this long. Weird.


3 posted on 08/19/2009 9:45:09 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

One of these days we’re going to find a bug that should’ve remained in the ground.


4 posted on 08/19/2009 9:47:53 AM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“The fossil, thought to be 150 million years old, was found when a rock was cracked open, revealing the one-inch-long black ink sac.

A picture of the creature and its Latin name was drawn using its ink...”

It would be soooo cool if someone millions of years from now would use the contents of my sack to write my name.


5 posted on 08/19/2009 9:48:42 AM PDT by Made In The USA (BO stinks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

or perhaps it isn’t as old as science assumes.


6 posted on 08/19/2009 9:48:52 AM PDT by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Made In The USA

Eww...and LOL


7 posted on 08/19/2009 9:49:54 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blogger

I can’t say, but I think I remember being taught that organic matter could not survive that long. However, that was a long time ago (but of course, not long enough for me to have fossilized—quite).


8 posted on 08/19/2009 9:50:41 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The guys at Miskatonic knew this years ago.

9 posted on 08/19/2009 9:51:48 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
Someday...we're gonna find a bug...

I've been saying that for a long time....

10 posted on 08/19/2009 9:51:52 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BGHater; allmendream; ElectricStrawberry; UCANSEE2; xcamel; Caramelgal; dmz; goodusername; ...

Hat tip to BGHater for turning me on to this story.

It would seem that finding unfossilized soft tissue supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is becoming quite commonplace. Just as the evos believe that biology is the study of complicated of complicated things that give the illusion of having been designed for a purpose, they believe that Jurrasic soft tissue gives the illusion of being young, but is in reality tens to hundreds of millions of years old. Why? Because the Temple of Darwin says so, that’s why.


11 posted on 08/19/2009 9:52:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac inside a rock that is 150 million years old

Dr Phil Wilby

12 posted on 08/19/2009 9:53:50 AM PDT by BGHater (Insanity is voting for Republicans and expecting Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yeah, that’s the ticket....150 million years....evolution.....we came from comets.....yep that’s the ticket


13 posted on 08/19/2009 9:54:14 AM PDT by panzerkamphwageneinz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

Go Shogoths!!

Good old MU.

They have frats and sororoties like other schools.
But their names are in classical Arabic not Greek.


14 posted on 08/19/2009 9:55:02 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (Hey, Mr. Obama, please don't kill my gramma! NO on socialist healthcare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector
Clone him so that I can get some Jurassic calamari.

Did you even CONSIDER the tremendous possibilities for the advancement of mankind this find has?

Inkjet printers with cartridges that don't dry out. (so what if they're b/w)

15 posted on 08/19/2009 9:55:29 AM PDT by This_far
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No DNA?..................


16 posted on 08/19/2009 9:56:17 AM PDT by Red Badger (I am totally against spooning............it eventually leads to forking................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


17 posted on 08/19/2009 9:56:23 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: This_far

Nope, it is lunch time and I am hungry so I just want to eat him.


18 posted on 08/19/2009 9:57:01 AM PDT by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This entire news article is rubbish.

The Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that is good enough for me.


19 posted on 08/19/2009 9:57:57 AM PDT by steven33442
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac fossilised in three dimension, still black, and inside a rock that is 150 million years old.”

Answer: You Don’t.


20 posted on 08/19/2009 9:58:15 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Maybe it is Black Gold, Texas Tea. Well, the first thing you know Ole Ceph’s a millionaire.....


21 posted on 08/19/2009 10:00:27 AM PDT by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

“organic matter”

“Dr Wilby, who led the excavation, said: “We think that these creatures were swimming around during the Jurassic period and were turned to stone soon after death. It’s called the Medusa effect.”

“turned to STONE”

So they reconstituted the fossilized “ink” with a liquid, and drew the picture. This is being completely misconstrued! It was STONE!


22 posted on 08/19/2009 10:02:04 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
I haven't heard anything about DNA yet, although they have run DNA tests on the soft tissue of a supposedly 65 mya T. rex. They found all sorts of DNA, some of which belonged to bacteria, etc...but some of which the scientists labeled as "unidentified."
23 posted on 08/19/2009 10:05:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

“The find was made at a site which was first excavated in Victorian times where thousands of Jurassic fossils with preserved soft tissues were found.”

Preserved soft tissues... these were stone also?


24 posted on 08/19/2009 10:06:26 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“It would seem that finding unfossilized soft tissue supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is becoming quite commonplace”

No it isn’t. So far it hasn’t ever happened. If you read this article, you’d have understood that they aren’t saying anything like you claim. This is just like your previous prevarications on other “soft tissue” posts.

Leave science to people who are qualified, and leave the lying to “creation science” - it’s all you folks know how to do.


25 posted on 08/19/2009 10:10:37 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

“Preserved soft tissues... these were stone also?”

Do you know anything about fossils? Seriously. Do you know anything about them?


26 posted on 08/19/2009 10:16:01 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

“Preserved soft tissues... these were stone also?”

Yes. Stone. “Soft tissues “ turned into stone. By conditions at that time that quickly covered the squid so that the soft tissue did not rot away. The “Medusa Effect.
http://tinyurl.com/lfyhb2
TURNED TO STONE.


27 posted on 08/19/2009 10:19:04 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

“So they reconstituted the fossilized “ink” with a liquid, and drew the picture. This is being completely misconstrued! It was STONE!”

Friend, at best it is being completely misconstrued. These “creation science” people don’t know what they are talking about. They cannot understand that when soft tissues are fossilized, this is an unusual thing, and worthy of note.

Instead, they prefer, most likely because of their God-given ignorance, to assume that a fossil of soft tissue is actual soft tissue. Don’t be alarmed, the “creation science” cabal cannot be educated on this or any other issue - they are dumb as a box of soft-tissue fossils.

Let them come to the conclusion that all their “research” must come to - that “Therefore Genesis is proven correct”.


28 posted on 08/19/2009 10:21:18 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

150 million.
Right.
sure.


29 posted on 08/19/2009 10:21:30 AM PDT by woollyone (I believe God created me- you believe you're related to monkeys. Of course I laughed at you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: steven33442
The Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that is good enough for me.

It would be good enough for me, too, if the Bible actually said or even implied that the earth was 6,000 years old. However, it doesn't.

Not only that, but God's revelation to us through his wonderful creation shows us that the universe is about 14.5 billion years old and the earth about 4 billion years old.

I'm sticking with God's revelation instead of a man-made age for the earth.


30 posted on 08/19/2009 10:23:35 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
I did some further checking, and I will agree that there is some question as to whether or not the "soft tissue" is unfossilized. Although, they are saying that the soft tissue, whether fossilized or otherwise, is so exceptionally preserved that it can be "dissected." But even if the soft tissue turns out to be fossilized, one still wonders how the squid became fossilized in the first place, and by the millions, no less. Sounds like a massive, catastrophic flood and rapid burial (and not "poisoning") to me.

Here's an electron micrograph of the connective soft tissue of the body wall of a supposed "Jurassic" squid.


31 posted on 08/19/2009 10:26:39 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

You are right! The specimens are just very interesting rocks!
From my link:
“Rapid fossilization of fishes and other animals in the Lower Cretaceous of the Chapada do Araripe, north-east Brazil, has preserved the most delicate structures known in the fossil record. Gills, muscles, stomachs and even eggs with yolks have been found. Interestingly, the material is not particularly rare, and specimens can be purchased from your local rock shop.”

“your local rock shop.”


32 posted on 08/19/2009 10:26:40 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: steven33442

“The Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that is good enough for me.”

So, you believe it without all the made up science of the “creation science” movement? If so, you are something that all of “creation science” can never be - honest and faithful.


33 posted on 08/19/2009 10:27:41 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The Flood, you know it’s true.


34 posted on 08/19/2009 10:30:16 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

The 6,000 year old number is from Bishop Ussher. The Bible does not say how old the earth is.


35 posted on 08/19/2009 10:31:10 AM PDT by texmexis best (uency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Which makes the 6,000 year old number non-scriptural.

Naughty boys, adding something to the Bible. Tsk, tsk.


36 posted on 08/19/2009 10:33:17 AM PDT by texmexis best (uency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: steven33442

The Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that is good enough for me.
______

Can you point me to chapter and verse wherein this is stated unequivocably?


37 posted on 08/19/2009 10:35:08 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
So far it [soft tissue preservation] hasn’t ever happened.

Actually it has, though it certainly isn't normal. Read this amazing story from Discovery Magazine.

Other than that minor issue, I do agree with you that a 6,000-year old universe is not supported by the Bible or by the scientific facts. One can a single study or a string of studies based upon the same supposition, but when so many experiments performed by such a wide variety of people in so many scientific disciplines lead to the same results, those results cannot honestly be disputed.


38 posted on 08/19/2009 10:37:40 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dmz

There is no reference to the age of the Earth in the Bible.

The figure was derived by a Bisop Ussher, around 1800(?) so it is a fairly recent development in Christian theology.

Believers in this number used to be called “Ussherites”.


39 posted on 08/19/2009 10:40:09 AM PDT by texmexis best (uency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: texmexis best; steven33442

There is no reference to the age of the Earth in the Bible.
____

Which is why I asked Steven for chapter and verse, because there isn’t one. I was kinda hoping to hear it from him, though.


40 posted on 08/19/2009 10:44:45 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dmz

How old is the earth?
If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God’s people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)


41 posted on 08/19/2009 10:45:21 AM PDT by steven33442
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: texmexis best
>Naughty boys, adding something to the Bible. Tsk, tsk.

Meet the man who says he has written the next chapter of the Bible
42 posted on 08/19/2009 10:45:54 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss

I read that article and it sounds as if the cabbie is on his way to being on the NYT bestseller list. he should do a cosmic cookbook as it it’ll sell well for decades.


43 posted on 08/19/2009 10:51:22 AM PDT by texmexis best (uency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Made In The USA

rofl


44 posted on 08/19/2009 10:52:19 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steven33442

If one is assessing the literal truth of the Bible, one cannot use the Bible as evidence of the truth contained in Bible. That is the essence of a circular argument.

Do you have any other evidence of a 6000 year old earth to provide?


45 posted on 08/19/2009 10:53:36 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

I don’t get it, doc, if it was stone how was it used to draw a picture?


46 posted on 08/19/2009 10:54:21 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

OK, let me restate. My understanding of fossils is that organic matter is replaced with minerals. You get something that LOOKS like the original creature, but it’s NOT the original creature. So, how can you have fossilized ink? I’m open to being corrected, because after all, I did learn this many years ago and I know science has come a long way.


47 posted on 08/19/2009 10:55:42 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

‘“The Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that is good enough for me.”

So, you believe it without all the made up science of the “creation science” movement? If so, you are something that all of “creation science” can never be - honest and faithful.’

I think the guy was joking when he wrote that the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old (it doesn’t), and that he was lampooning people who believe this. Then again, maybe he wasn’t joking, my humor meter is a little out of whack these days.


48 posted on 08/19/2009 10:55:44 AM PDT by Texan Tory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

BTW I’m not a creation person. I simply don’t understand how this occurred. Instead of calling people dumb, you might simply explain the mechanism by which there is actual ink (or something that can be reconstituted) from a fossil that is millions of years old.


49 posted on 08/19/2009 10:58:57 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: steven33442

According to Anglican Bishop Ussher, creation ocurred at nightfall of the evening preceding October 23rd, 4004.

He lived in the 17th century, not the 18th.


50 posted on 08/19/2009 10:59:50 AM PDT by texmexis best (uency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-289 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson