Ink found in Jurassic-era squid (150 mya squid "can be dissected as if they are living animals")

BBC ^ | August 19,2009

[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...

[UCANSEE2]

Finding soft tissue in dinos only stengthens that evidence..

Why?

If we were to find a live 'dinosaur', would that prove that dinosaurs didn't exist 65 mya?

[count-your-change]

I know what is in the quote but it seems you don't.

From the fossilized leg PROTEINS PRESERVED....not male molds, not plaster casts or sequenced minerals and the article says proteins several times more.

“Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found — Blood Vessels, More
John Roach
for National Geographic News
May 1, 2009
The proteins were recovered from a hadrosaur femur that had been encased in sandstone, which appears to prevent complete tissue degradation, Asara said”

And concludes with:

“UC San Diego's Pevzner—who had been critical of the technique used to analyze the T. rex proteins—said the new study was “done the right way,” with more stringent controls to guard against contamination and a higher bar for defining the material as dinosaur protein.”

However, if they don't know what proteins are or what they really found, etc., think of how grateful they would be for your insight.

DID THEY FIND PROTEINS OR NOT?

[LeGrande]

DID THEY FIND PROTEINS OR NOT?

I like this quote. "Although, we don't believe that it is contamination."

Sounds definitive to me : )

"Preliminary microscopic analysis revealed structures resembling blood vessels, cells, and collagen, he noted."

Like I said, "resembling" = male molds. The fossilized femur itself resembles a femur. The point seems to be that fossilization, under the right conditions, can go down to the molecular level.

Do you believe that the fossil is less than 7000 years old?

[count-your-change]

Better keep your letters short then, seeing the dearness of supply.

[Habibi]

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

Faith is a wonderful thing (seriously). Suit yourself on your belief system, but don't take that attitude into your palaeontology final (helpful hint). :-)

[count-your-change]

Like he said, “Preliminary microscopic analysis...”, which is why further tests were done and the conclusion reached that proteins had indeed been found, not male molds.

Besides, what's with this “male molds”? Think they were planning on starting a breeding farm?

“The point seems to be that fossilization, under the right conditions, can go down to the molecular level.”

Your point perhaps, not the point of the article.

“Do you believe that the fossil is less than 7000 years old?”

I have no way of reaching a belief about this particular fossil's age. (Well, I am pretty sure it's older than I am!)
And if you're attempting to elicit a view that the earth its self is but thousands of years old, I am not of that opinion and have made that quite clear numerous times.

[dmz]

Can you say, without equivocation, without a shred of doubt, and with documentation, that not one word of an earlier work was changed by someone writing later?

[colorado tanker]

Found next to a deep fat fryer and cocktail sauce . . . .

[metmom]

If you look at the painstaking process used in transcribing the Scriptures, scholars were very meticulous to do that faithfully.

Comparing the older texts to the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated that.

[count-your-change]

Since no autograph manuscripts of the Bible exist no one can say they have a word for word copy of the original and since copies of manuscripts differ slightly from one another it is certain that the copyist did not always copy exactly word for word.

The Masoretes made marginal notes on alternative readings when they made copies and any good reference Bible will make note of these differing readings.

That I can say without doubt and if you want documentation I can refer you to some sources.

However, it must be pointed out that the differences are usually of a minor kind and are well known so that the reader can be sure he has God's Word.

[tpanther]

As to your word of God hurdle, that’s kind of funny, given that (extending the race metaphor) you choose not to participate in the race. The outcome was determined before the race begain. No scientific discovery, no scientific theory whatsoever will shake your faith, and if any of those theories tend to contradict your belief, they are simply dismissed out of hand, no investigation necessary.

Actually, that's the evo position, no intelligence, no design, and if anyone disagrees...well just hijack the courts to enforce science.

That's not science, that's liberalism.

[tpanther]

The way I see it, it can’t be anything else!

The way I see it, that pretty much makes freedom of religion impossible.

Why?

You still have your free will and you're free to reject God.

At your own eternal peril...

[tacticalogic]

You still have your free will and you're free to reject God.

That would be "something else", and it can't be that.

[LeGrande]

DID THEY FIND PROTEINS OR NOT?

I like this quote. "Although, we don't believe that it is contamination."

Sounds definitive to me : )

Do you believe that the fossil is less than 7000 years old?

[LeGrande]

And if you're attempting to elicit a view that the earth its self is but thousands of years old, I am not of that opinion and have made that quite clear numerous times.

What is your opinion on the age of the earth?

[count-your-change]

Scientists say a few billion years old and I have no reason to argue with that. Of course I don’t have any expertise to argue with it either.

[ColdWater]

Another evo trying to be as obnoxious as possible on crevo threads, I see. WHo put you in charge? He did give you a name - Dawkins, as if anyone already doesn't know that his position is that evolution gives the appearance of design.

Reference please. Thank you.

[ColdWater]

From the link in #218:

“Creationists plagiarize each other to a chronic and incestuous degree. They almost never offer references, and never check their so-called ‘facts’.”

[ColdWater]

He did give you a name - Dawkins, as if anyone already doesn't know that his position is that evolution gives the appearance of design. You've been on these threads long enough that you can't honestly pretend that you haven't seen that position.

I have been here long enough to look for distortions in your posts. Like the one above where you misrepresent what G_dGunsGuts and I was discussing with him.

[ColdWater]

You might start with Richard Dawkins.

BUSTED

For Dawkins, there is no purpose behind life because the is no creator of life

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_purposeoflife.htm