Yet another example of astonishing fossil preservation

[CGM]

So not only is this squid unevolved in over 150 million years of evolution it's ink sac full of ink has remained nice and wet for of all that time, no small achievement considering the nozzles on my last printer clogged and went dry after just a few months

Am I the only person here who is sceptical that ink can remain in a liquid form for over 150 million years? That's one hell of a fucking shelf life I'd like to see Epson manage that

Did you read the part about how the "ink" had solidified and had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia before they could "draw" with it?

Of course it would have solidified, that would have happened within a couple weeks, the point is that it shouldn't have remained at all. They have now found ink, blood cells, proteins, collagen etc that are supposedly tens of millions of years old, substances previously thought to have shelf lives in the thousands of years at best.

They have found unfossilised hadrosaur bones, do you even know how amazing that is? We now have miners hats from less than a hundred years ago completely fossilised yet some hadrosaur and T Rex bones defied the fossilisation process for millions and millions of years.

And now ink can apparently survive for 150,000,000 too.

I wonder how long before they find a prehistoric tomato from 80,000,000 BC that can be rehydrated and fed to some rabbits, and you'll helpfully point it that the tomato was sundried not fresh.

OK, well you were the one who made such a big deal about being skeptical that the ink could be in liquid form, I was just pointing out that which you had apparently overlooked, which was that no-on in either article made the claim that it was liquid in the first place. If you want to now say of course it was solidified, well the discrepancy is obvious.

Anyways, the "ink" had solidified, more than that, it was fossilized. That much is explicit and clear from the BBC article. . If you want to argue that that is not possible, then take it up with The British Geological Survey, and let us know how it goes.

your comments seem to indicate total cluelessness about the concept of fossilization.

[brucelee]

I don't believe in evolution and little by little, Bilbo is giving me more reasons not to believe it.

Thanks Bilbo.

[Salty]

I don't see how this dispells evolution?

[Youngblood]

It is astonishing to me, yet nothing new, to hear someone claim to be intelligent, then within a few breaths say they don't believe evolution. And it isn't even that I am suggesting all smart people agree it is part of our history (even though most do) but more that it amazes me that people have so little subjective reasoning ability. That they'll totally not notice the giant mountain rising up from the Earth in front of them, to then grab a questionable pebble and say, "here it is, and so we climb!"

[Andre]

Yes Youngblood its like having blinkers on.

But to say the reverse is only true, is also having blinkers on too.

I think its a mixture of both creation and evolution. Just because two sections of thought split and two groups took sides who says you have to think one way or the other?

Night and day ,good and evil, hot and cold,white and black. False judgments the whole lot of them; when viewed from only inside their own effect.

I say your spirit your body and your mental state are separate and they each evolve through separate means and the mind is also mainly split in two so as to accommodate the fact you are locked into duality.People can be ran by either, some by one, some by all in balance,that is where our choices and personalities evolve from and form.

Physics is on the brink of proving the whole thing (in this dimension only) is held together by thoughts and that thought is the original form behind energy and energy behind all matter. What will never be measured from where we are at, is the divine feeling that created the original divine thought.

Then unfortuantley a question arose and is being answered internally from within the questioners,us.


We should be growing or evolving on each level. Fixed thinking and fixed beliefs are judgments and that is from the heart of duality and that is what keeps people stuck and not able to think outside of the square.
Their own religious documents warned them about it,their own religion warns them to cease it on all levels, but alas,they judge ,the mental ,the physical and the spiritual all with the same measuring stick ...right or wrong...which is the judgment their own book warns about getting stuck within.


Vibrating frequencies have dimensional limitations; as do thoughts, if your whole system isnt in sync and ready to operate at a higher frequency you will be stuck within one point of view, until you feel to choose otherwise.

[Youngblood]

lol what's a blinker?

I'm not saying that there aren't possibly things going on we don't know about. There of course are. And we discover more and more each passing day. But to hinge a whole arguement for discounting a mountain of scientifically proven evidence based on a mere belief and no proof is the foolish part. To say, 'ha you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is. So therefore I am right and the world is 6000 yrs old! Here is a tiny morsel of maybe disproof, it all must be beans!" lol is basically that logic simplified. And it is flawed reasoning. But anyway, this is a long tiring subject, and I really am not trying to convert anyone.

But what are you talking about here, "thought is the original form of energy and energy behind all matter? And that physics is on the brink of explaining it and in this dimension only?" lol what?

I'd like to get a bit more clued in where you are finding this stuff. I am pretty aware to where physics is currently, and where M-string theory is in trying to unravel the possibilities of other dimensions (as I've previously discussed, 10 of space, 1 of time in Witten's work after unifying the five differing POVs of string theory) and this is more about understanding particles, supersymmetry, the mysteries of gravity, things that occured micro-seconds after creation, by recreating them. Not thoughts. (You know I can go in this area forever...)

I like you Andre, and I get the whole higher thinking/spirituality based angle you tend to wander in, and a part of me hopes for humankinds sake we further evolve as a species beyond the mere physical and one day become an enlighted species, beyond such petty things now as our primary negative emotions and traits, anger, greed, domination, jealousy, self-centeredness etc. They will be our downfall I believe.

And Andre, I agree we should have an open mind.

I guess what I am saying regarding religion and such things, is OK, you creationists who must believe in some kinda God, have your belief, your faith, but don't try to use that to in some way argue facts that are proving to explain the known universe. As well the unseeable universe. That explain who you are and where you came from. The realm in which we live. We have laws of nature that make it work. These laws, and science are leading us there to an answer. Hey, who knows what that answer is. It may even be God. But blind faith is often trying to pull us back. And why? Because science contradicts a bunch of beliefs written up thousands of years ago by some dudes sitting around, and people, for whatever reason, can't get there heads around that...it was likely just a story! Made by men.

So anyway, yea. This is a subject which ofc will never have closure. But we are getting closer. By doing math. By conducting experiments. By challenging beliefs, questioning. By theorizing. And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we'd all still be living on a flat world.

[CFH]

lol what's a blinker?

I'm not saying that there aren't possibly things going on we don't know about. There of course are. And we discover more and more each passing day. But to hinge a whole arguement for discounting a mountain of scientifically proven evidence based on a mere belief and no proof is the foolish part. To say, 'ha you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is. So therefore I am right and the world is 6000 yrs old! Here is a tiny morsel of maybe disproof, it all must be beans!" lol is basically that logic simplified. And it is flawed reasoning. But anyway, this is a long tiring subject, and I really am not trying to convert anyone.

But what are you talking about here, "thought is the original form of energy and energy behind all matter? And that physics is on the brink of explaining it and in this dimension only?" lol what?

I'd like to get a bit more clued in where you are finding this stuff. I am pretty aware to where physics is currently, and where M-string theory is in trying to unravel the possibilities of other dimensions (as I've previously discussed, 10 of space, 1 of time in Witten's work after unifying the five differing POVs of string theory) and this is more about understanding particles, supersymmetry, the mysteries of gravity, things that occured micro-seconds after creation, by recreating them. Not thoughts. (You know I can go in this area forever...)

I like you Andre, and I get the whole higher thinking/spirituality based angle you tend to wander in, and a part of me hopes for humankinds sake we further evolve as a species beyond the mere physical and one day become an enlighted species, beyond such petty things now as our primary negative emotions and traits, anger, greed, domination, jealousy, self-centeredness etc. They will be our downfall I believe.

And Andre, I agree we should have an open mind.

I guess what I am saying regarding religion and such things, is OK, you creationists who must believe in some kinda God, have your belief, your faith, but don't try to use that to in some way argue facts that are proving to explain the known universe. As well the unseeable universe. That explain who you are and where you came from. The realm in which we live. We have laws of nature that make it work. These laws, and science are leading us there to an answer. Hey, who knows what that answer is. It may even be God. But blind faith is often trying to pull us back. And why? Because science contradicts a bunch of beliefs written up thousands of years ago by some dudes sitting around, and people, for whatever reason, can't get there heads around that...it was likely just a story! Made by men.

So anyway, yea. This is a subject which ofc will never have closure. But we are getting closer. By doing math. By conducting experiments. By challenging beliefs, questioning. By theorizing. And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we'd all still be living on a flat world.

Fuck you for being half my age and twice as smart as me. I hope you die.

[Andre]

lol what's a blinker?

I'm not saying that there aren't possibly things going on we don't know about. There of course are. And we discover more and more each passing day. But to hinge a whole arguement for discounting a mountain of scientifically proven evidence based on a mere belief and no proof is the foolish part. To say, 'ha you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is. So therefore I am right and the world is 6000 yrs old! Here is a tiny morsel of maybe disproof, it all must be beans!" lol is basically that logic simplified. And it is flawed reasoning. But anyway, this is a long tiring subject, and I really am not trying to convert anyone.

But what are you talking about here, "thought is the original form of energy and energy behind all matter? And that physics is on the brink of explaining it and in this dimension only?" lol what?

I'd like to get a bit more clued in where you are finding this stuff. I am pretty aware to where physics is currently, and where M-string theory is in trying to unravel the possibilities of other dimensions (as I've previously discussed, 10 of space, 1 of time in Witten's work after unifying the five differing POVs of string theory) and this is more about understanding particles, supersymmetry, the mysteries of gravity, things that occured micro-seconds after creation, by recreating them. Not thoughts. (You know I can go in this area forever...)

I like you Andre, and I get the whole higher thinking/spirituality based angle you tend to wander in, and a part of me hopes for humankinds sake we further evolve as a species beyond the mere physical and one day become an enlighted species, beyond such petty things now as our primary negative emotions and traits, anger, greed, domination, jealousy, self-centeredness etc. They will be our downfall I believe.

And Andre, I agree we should have an open mind.

I guess what I am saying regarding religion and such things, is OK, you creationists who must believe in some kinda God, have your belief, your faith, but don't try to use that to in some way argue facts that are proving to explain the known universe. As well the unseeable universe. That explain who you are and where you came from. The realm in which we live. We have laws of nature that make it work. These laws, and science are leading us there to an answer. Hey, who knows what that answer is. It may even be God. But blind faith is often trying to pull us back. And why? Because science contradicts a bunch of beliefs written up thousands of years ago by some dudes sitting around, and people, for whatever reason, can't get there heads around that...it was likely just a story! Made by men.

So anyway, yea. This is a subject which ofc will never have closure. But we are getting closer. By doing math. By conducting experiments. By challenging beliefs, questioning. By theorizing. And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we'd all still be living on a flat world.

Sorry mate; Blinkers, like on horses to create tunnel vision.

I like you too by the way, but we wont get a room. :-)

I have studied and practiced so many things I cant say all as some ways are to be found by those who seek.

I'll try and split up and answer all you asked of me there just so you can begin to understand why I choose to view it the way I do; but from the physical -add and subtract point of view only Im more with Albert Einstein than anyone else regarding the big question.

I dont agree with him at all that mankind does not shape his own life because I know that it is shaped by our previous incarnations our Karmic position and our agreements and more than that our intention from being right in the moment of now.

Many ancient scriptures had that knowledge removed and kept secret completly in order to hold people under an "its now or never for you" fear based control', so as to gain full control over the masses, who breeds faster who has money tithed to them etc, as they still do.

The Vatican its self has this knowledge and more under lock and key and Rome will not relinquish control over its adopted and reshaped religion, Just yet there is too much $ and control of people at stake.

Anyway some excerpts from the times when Albert E was asked the big question:

Do you believe in God?
“I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
Is this a Jewish concept of God? “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”
Is this Spinoza’s God? “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”

Do you believe in immortality? “No. And one life is enough for me.”

Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo,
“What I Believe,” that he recorded for a human rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.”



People found the piece evocative, even inspiring, and it was reprinted repeatedly in a variety of translations. But not surprisingly, it did not satisfy those who wanted a simple, direct answer to the question of whether or not he believed in God. For some, only a clear belief in a personal God who controls daily life qualified as a genuine faith. “The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism,” Boston’s Cardinal William Henry O’Connell said. This public blast from a Cardinal prompted the noted Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, to send a very direct telegram: “Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words.” Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”








That last statment has so much hidden wisdom in it that has to do with why God remains whole ,untouched and in his/her original form elsewhere away from this lower dimension that we experience our own stuff from. Which is also linked to why there is only about 4% matter in the whole universe and how it is held in formations.

[Kev]

It is astonishing to me, yet nothing new, to hear someone claim to be intelligent, then within a few breaths say they don't believe evolution. And it isn't even that I am suggesting all smart people agree it is part of our history (even though most do) but more that it amazes me that people have so little subjective reasoning ability. That they'll totally not notice the giant mountain rising up from the Earth in front of them, to then grab a questionable pebble and say, "here it is, and so we climb!"

Josh you need to question the mountain that is put in front of you my friend.

The theory of evolution is a giant delusion, the evidence for which evaporates under scientific scrutiny.

The theory does not stand up to logical reasoning or scientific testing.

The confusion lies in people's misconceptions. They see adaptation and change within a species, different breeds of dog, Darwin's finches etc and are told that creationists deny these self evident truths thus they rightly reject such apparent blindness to the obvious and then accept without question the rest of the evolutionary dogma, i.e the Macro Evolution, life from non life, changes within a species can lead to new species and ultimately new life forms evolving over time.

This is one giant hoodwink however. Firstly all creationists accept that creatures can adapt and change according to enviromental pressure etc but this is NOT evolution on a macro scale.

You see it all comes down to information.

Each animal and plant kind has encoded within its DNA all of the information necessary to build that organism. There is a tremendous amount of information, and variability encoded within that DNA and can lead to a great variety within species, or animal kinds.

However with every reproduction information is LOST, half of the information of the male, and half of the female goes into producing the offspring, the rest is not transferred to the offspring.

Thus by selective breeding, either natural or artificial certain traits can be removed and added by the process of reproduction.

Thus a wolf can over many generations eventually be weaned down to a tiny poodle if the breeding process takes away the right chromosomes and elements.

However and this is the key fact, there reaches a point where too much information is lost and the creature cannot change any more. In fact it will nearly always been unheathly, and have less intelligence and a shorter lifespan than animals that mix up their gene pool.

Eventually you get to the point where the only way to reintroduce new information to that animals DNA is to breed it with another dog species to add back some of the information that is missing.

This is the OPPOSITE of evolution which says that new information can be created out of nowhere by random mutations in the reproductive process. Such beneficial mutations have NEVER EVER been observed to occur, not one single time, yet this is according the science the main driving factor of evolutionary change, a near infinite number of such mutations must have occured during the span of life on earth, more numerous than grains of sand on all the beaches on earth yet not one has EVER been found.

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances. There is not a single observation or experience which contradicts this law of science, yet evolution requires it, out of disorder and chaos comes order and increasing complexity, the universe ordered itself as a result of random processes following a gigantic intergalatic explosion etc.

Properly understood macro evolution is impossible according to mathematics, logic, science and observation.

The fossil record screams against evolution, no gradual change of organisms over millions of years is found, but rather just extinction, once again order descending into disorder, as all of our science, logic and experience indicates.

It is a bold claim to make, but one that cannot be contradicted, but there is NO, not a shred, not iota of evidence for evolution on a macro scale.

I urge all of you enlightened and intelligence souls to investigate this for yourself.

Look behind the curtain, examine the theory in detail and you will see it collapse and evaporate into nothingness before your very eyes.

[CGM]

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances.

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

[Kev]

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances.

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

How many times has science managed to create an explosion that built something, or how many times has life 'popped' into existence, or maybe an inanimate object turned to life?

All of these ideas are ludicrous to the extreme, yet for some reason people believe that by extrapolating them to even greater heights, and then placing the events billions of years into times past that they become plausible. It is an interesting exercise in self delusion.

If a hand grenade thrown into a house cannot tidy the house up or a bombing of an automobile factory cannot produce a new car how much more absurd is it to believe that an explosion could create the entire known universe?

Order into disorder is a universal, unavoidable fact of this universe. Everything is dying, everything is losing information and deteriorating. Please if I am misuing this idea then suggest just one single example where this is contradicted?

Macro evolution runs counter to science, it is anti scientific by definition.

[TheMacMagician]

I don't believe in evolution and little by little, Bilbo is giving me more reasons not to believe it.

Thanks Bilbo.

I'd love to hear more about how you don't believe in Evolution, do you have some madcap list of theories?

[Youngblood]

Bruce, Bilbo hasn't given you anything I'm afraid. Little more then the proverbial chain jerk on your already need to believe. I'm fairly certain he is secretly laughing too. And although I often tease you, on this point I am serious. I know you're not a stupid guy. And I readily agree many smart people have a need to follow certain religious doctrine no matter how improbable.

I believed in Santa Clause long after most of my friends tried to tell me otherwise, long after I knew in my core the whole story and deal didn't line up. Silly right? I'm a smart kid, right. The thing was, my dad always bred into me the value of honesty, integrity, and I trusted the man more then anything in the/my universe, especially through the eyes of my innocent childhood. So when person after person tried to tell me Santa didn't exist, and when I'd ask my dad, again and again and he'd go into great detail on the how and the why he did, I couldn't bring myself to believe my father would lie to me, would betray me in such a way. For he was large and perfect in my eyes. And so I defied all the reason and logic as long as I could, to dispell the reality that he was and is nothing more then a flawed man, much like we all ultimately are.

Just a bit of an analogy from my perspective. But it has to do with some of our basic human traits that often can overwhelm our logic. Consider it a sort of emotional system fail safe. I believe we are often too fragile to understand, or moreso unable to believe a truth that dispells a story we so trusted as a truth. It's just too painful for many of us.

[brucelee]

Bruce, Bilbo hasn't given you anything I'm afraid. Little more then the proverbial chain jerk on your already need to believe. I'm fairly certain he is secretly laughing too. And although I often tease you, on this point I am serious. I know you're not a stupid guy. And I readily agree many smart people have a need to follow certain religious doctrine no matter how improbable.

I believed in Santa Clause long after most of my friends tried to tell me otherwise, long after I knew in my core the whole story and deal didn't line up. Silly right? I'm a smart kid, right. The thing was, my dad always bred into me the value of honesty, integrity, and I trusted the man more then anything in the/my universe, especially through the eyes of my innocent childhood. So when person after person tried to tell me Santa didn't exist, and when I'd ask my dad, again and again and he'd go into great detail on the how and the why he did, I couldn't bring myself to believe my father would lie to me, would betray me in such a way. For he was large and perfect in my eyes. And so I defied all the reason and logic as long as I could, to dispell the reality that he was and is nothing more then a flawed man, much like we all ultimately are.

Just a bit of an analogy from my perspective. But it has to do with some of our basic human traits that often can overwhelm our logic. Consider it a sort of emotional system fail safe. I believe we are often too fragile to understand, or moreso unable to believe a truth that dispells a story we so trusted as a truth. It's just too painful for many of us.

Regarding Bilbo, I know that he agrees with me and even if he doesn't categorically admit that, his posts against evolution impliedly gives assent to my opinion regarding faith and science.

Your analogy regarding Santa Claus is somewhat misplaced and your reason not to believe in a divine being as the creator of all things is definitely not plausible for me. In life, we simply don't decide not to believe because we don't want to get hurt. This is where discernment comes. When we are unsure, we think. When we can't think, we believe. In believing, we take risks and that's the beauty of faith. As you may have known already, wherever we go and whatever we do, we always take risks. The intensity of risks may vary in different situations but there will always be risks. For example, when you go to school there is a risk that you might get hurt along the way but it doesn't hinder you from attending classes because you know that you need to learn. As you take your classes everyday, you learn to forget and discount the risks of getting hurt and later on you will realize that thinking about getting hurt is futile and counterproductive because learning something everyday from your classes is a "taste of heaven". That is because I assume that you are the type of person who seeks knowledge and relishes on wisdom.

My faith is just like that. The risk I'm taking in my belief in God is nothing compared to the return I will get if He really exist... and that's my pragmatic side speaking. If the reward of heaven and the damnation of hell has a probability of one over a billion true, prudence dictates that despite the risk of being disillusioned, believing in God is the ultimate road to take in a world full of diverging roads of lies, deceits and pains.

Will I then believe in the work of scientists and all their postulates which I happen to know to be changing even as I write now? My answer will be NEVER. Of what eternal good will I get if I trust in the works of men which I know is fallible, prejudiced and biased? My erudite analysis says, "NONE".

I will rather trust in God and His promise of eternal heaven. If God and heaven is not true, at least, I will pass away knowing that I live a "good and contented life" because of my belief.

So Santa Claus is not true and you got hurt. At this moment, could you honestly say that the pain of disillusion was too great that you could no longer take risks concerning God?

[Youngblood]

I''m sorry Bruce, but the lottery is a bad bet. And that is what you're doing given the explanation.

Anyway, I hate getting into these discussions, because I don't want to convert anyone, or change their beliefs. And I often feel like that is what I'm attempting. It really isn't. And I feel the Santa analogy (albeit all analogies are weak) is not at all misplaced. It speaks to human nature.

But I am going to sign out of this discussion, as again, it really isn't my intent to persuade.