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 ...
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)
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.
rofl
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?
I don’t get it, doc, if it was stone how was it used to draw a picture?
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.
‘“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.
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.
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.
“I will agree that there is some question as to whether or not the “soft tissue” is unfossilized.”
No, there is not “some question” as to whether it is unfossilized.
“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.”
While they don’t specifically say so, one can imagine that the ink was fossilized at the same time, with the same “Medusa Effect” mentioned in the article.
I’m not calling everyone dumb, just the “creation science” folks on here that think a soft tissue fossil is soft tissue. What else can you call it?
According to Anglican Bishop Ussher, creation ocurred at nightfall of the evening preceding October 23rd, 4004.
_____
So they had a week to prepare for the first Halloween.
I wouldn’t bother to argue with them, I wouldn’t change their mind and science doesn’t interfere with my faith. (and you asserting that they are dumb doesn’t change their minds either, if that’s your goal).
Now, on to the question at hand. If the ink was fossilized, it would have been replaced by other materials. So, it’s not really ink anymore. I’m not understanding how this can be reconstituted. UNLESS the ink is made of something that simply dried out and didn’t really fossilize.
“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)”
Uh, that was similar to a Dilbert joke.
The boss says something like “We must cut down on photocopier use to save the squids”.
I completely believe this story, knowing the stupidity of the avg human being.
“Maybe it is Black Gold, Texas Tea. Well, the first thing you know Ole Ceph’s a millionaire.....
“
Funny!
And clever too.
==No it isn’t. So far it hasn’t ever happened.
Are you one of those people who still maintain, in the face of all the evidence, that they haven’t found dino soft-tissue?
I’d just settle for an inkjet cartridge that isn’t 49.95 (oddly enough the printer was 39.95).
Take a bit of the black rock. Grind it into a powder. Add a liquid, today that would be some sort of polymer I believe. Use a brush, a quill, or a pen.
That micrograph is suspiciously familiar. It’s archaebacteria.
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.