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 ...
Why?
If we were to find a live 'dinosaur', would that prove that dinosaurs didn't exist 65 mya?
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 Pevznerwho had been critical of the technique used to analyze the T. rex proteinssaid 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?
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?
Better keep your letters short then, seeing the dearness of supply.
Faith is a wonderful thing (seriously). Suit yourself on your belief system, but don't take that attitude into your palaeontology final (helpful hint). :-)
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.
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?
Found next to a deep fat fryer and cocktail sauce . . . .
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.
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.
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.
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...
That would be "something else", and it can't be that.
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?
What is your opinion on the age of the earth?
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.
Reference please. Thank you.
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’.”
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.
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
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.