Skip to comments.Squid Fossils, Ancient DNA, and a Young Earth
Posted on 10/27/2009 10:09:22 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The field of biology has provided much support for a recent creation, and physical evidence of very young-looking biological materials from supposedly ancient fossils continues to accrue from around the world, and from various depths under the earth.
In August of this year, paleontologists in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, England, made a discovery that astounded the evolutionary community...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I favor a young earth but fear I would not be allowed to live there.
This is all just part of a creationist conspiracy.
When an article starts with utter nonsense, then one can conclude that it isn't worth reading beyond the first sentence, and in fact one regrets wasting the time to do that.
If you take the time to read the following, I can assure you that you will find it absolutely fascinating:
DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution
And the quote "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" is completely disingenuous. The original reads, "It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac fossilised in three dimensions, still black, and inside a rock that is 150 million years old."
Just another example of lying for god.
Another instance of making it up as they go. The field of biology has provided zero support for a recent creation.
Ah yes.....the ole "intact ink sack" twist.
OYG....some animals haven't evolved much....that must mean that evolution doesn't exist.......such great intellect needed for sucha sound conclusion.
OYG...old DNA FRAGMENT sequences!!! That means Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs 4,400 years ago.
OYG....DNA sequences from a FROZEN guy!!! Proof positive....Man walked the Earth with T. rex!!!
OYG....bacteria are found in the most intolerant of places!!!
False conclusion, Dr.
Bullshit. There are countless types of rocks that, when added to an appropriate fluid, will render an “ink”. Read the quote again, “fossilised in three dimensions”. What part of that do you not understand?
Actually, they GROUND the SOLID contents of the ink sac and rehydrated it with AMMONIA.
No surprise, it rehydrated into something that you could draw with. Of course, you can do the same with some tree barks, some seeds, some rocks, some clays, some insects.....
Oh, I see, and that particular rock just happened to turn the same color as the squid’s ink in the exact dimensions of the squid’s ink sack? Yeah, right. Evos will believe just about anything so long as it hides the fact that the Temple of Darwin is being shaken to its very foundations and crumbling to the ground.
Since you started with the ad hominem attacks, I will simple say that I don’t intent to waste any more of my time with bible thumping morons who are so arrogant as to think they understand God’s way of doing things and too stupid to realize just how dumb they really are. Have a great day.
That confirms it, you have indeed made the ultimate sacrifice. You know, it’s not too late to reclaim your brain. But you better hurry before they clear them out to make room for the next batch of darwin-drones making the ultimate sacrifice.
Just remember, it’s not too late, but time is quite literally running out.
Yes, that particular fossilized ink sac, when ground up and rehydrated with ammonia, turned into an ink capable of drawing on paper.
OYG....that means Man walked the Earth with vegetarian T rex!!!
Yes, a squid’s ink sac fossilized, the key term being FOSSILIZED. Of course, soft tissue fossils are more rare than simple bone/shell fossils, but not unheard of outside of your small world.....and didja know that they also found some fossililzed eyes too?
What I find amazing is that someone would be surprised that a ground up and rehydrated fossilized ink sac would make an ink-like substance.
Are you casting pearls in front of swine? ;0)
This was discussed the first time this article appeared.
Apparently, the ink sac was not fossilized, it was just dessicated.
In fossilization, the bony material of the creature is replaced by minerals from the surrounding soil. Other elements, (like an ink sac) become dessicated. They can be rehydrated.
Excellent description...and to the point! Thanks for helping to clear things up :o)
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the ping.
I wonder why it took 50 to 70 years for science to accept Darwin’s natural selection theory, and reject his Pangenesis theory altogether.
I bet the Precambrian banded irons rocks that billions of years old would make a nice red ink.