“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?
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 If the ink was fossilized, it would have been replaced by other materials.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.