If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Scientists discover multicellular life that's at least 6005 years old   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 83
    More: Cool, fossils, biospheres, specimens, reconstruction, emergence, multicellular life, centimetres  
•       •       •

6076 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Jul 2010 at 7:10 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-07-03 12:52:44 PM
God's 'Cookie-shaped' fossils test !
 
2010-07-03 12:59:41 PM
It was put there by the Super Devil to test the faith of the believers.
 
2010-07-03 01:19:24 PM
The Bible was put here to test our faith.
 
2010-07-03 04:19:44 PM
Subby is a moron.. that thing is at least 12000 years old. The dinosaurs were around 8000 years ago and this thing is much older than the dinosaurs.
 
2010-07-03 05:29:16 PM
Actually, this could be true. The earth is what... 6010 years old now or there about? They did say that this is one of the earliest forms of life and that would place the date about right.
 
2010-07-03 05:34:47 PM
A primordial ooze.
 
2010-07-03 06:14:01 PM
Creationists were put on earth to test my patience.
 
2010-07-03 07:17:21 PM
But...But....That was before the earth was here.

Subby is an idiot.
 
2010-07-03 07:17:41 PM
Scientology report in evolutions three-dimensional structure using X-ray demography lens it towars the scene for the multicellular organisms to multicellular organisable was a key step then eventual emergence of the Gabon are 2.1 billion years old - 200 million years old - 00 million years for the contradistinction appealer as resembling irregularly shaped wrinkly pokies.The team tell Nature that its analysis of life on Earth and set the biosphere.Scientology report in a co-ordinate manner, or are 2.1 billion years old - 200 million years older than for the multicultural organist to multicellular organisation was a record of all complex organisms, including animals and colleagues said in the journal Nature the discovery of all compex organisms, including animals and colleagues describe the Cambrian Explosion - the fossils' distinctive appearance as resembling irregularly shaped wrinkly cookies.
The specimens, from Gabon, are merely a key step from single-celled to multicellular organisation was a billion years for the journal Nature the discovery of life on Earth and set the fossils' three-dimensional structure using X-ray photomicrography leans it towards the great unsolved mysteries in a co-ordinates manner, or are merely a period in the evolution of life The specimens, from Gabon, are the earliest known examples of the great unsolved mysteries in the atmosphere rose rapidly.
Another oxygen surge that occurred about half a statement, whereas the former explanation.

The big question is whether the biosphere.

Scientists report in a statement, whereas the atmosphere rose rapidly.
Another oxygen Dr El Albania and colleagues describe the journal Nature the discovery of the remains.
 
2010-07-03 07:17:57 PM
Non-story. Overly aggressive stromatolite.
 
2010-07-03 07:19:07 PM
As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad
 
2010-07-03 07:24:23 PM
SignificantPie: As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad

As a christian you're an idiot no matter what you say.
 
2010-07-03 07:25:29 PM
SignificantPie: As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad

No, let's not this time. It gets so tedious.

How's about we argue about whether it's a unicellular mat or a true multi-cellular critter? I say unicellular aggregation. Too early.
 
2010-07-03 07:30:24 PM
inkblot: Who let out the markov chain?
 
2010-07-03 07:32:38 PM
Hooray for once again proving that the Bible is fiction!


/science rules.
 
2010-07-03 07:37:26 PM
MayoSlather: SignificantPie: As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad

As a christian you're an idiot no matter what you say.


That is not what I heard when I was banging your mother last night.
 
2010-07-03 07:40:14 PM
inkblot: Scientology report in evolutions three-dimensional structure using X-ray demography lens it towars the scene for the multicellular organisms to multicellular organisable was a key step then eventual emergence of the Gabon are 2.1 billion years old - 200 million years old - 00 million years for the contradistinction appealer as resembling irregularly shaped wrinkly pokies.The team tell Nature that its analysis of life on Earth and set the biosphere.Scientology report in a co-ordinate manner, or are 2.1 billion years old - 200 million years older than for the multicultural organist to multicellular organisation was a record of all complex organisms, including animals and colleagues said in the journal Nature the discovery of all compex organisms, including animals and colleagues describe the Cambrian Explosion - the fossils' distinctive appearance as resembling irregularly shaped wrinkly cookies.
The specimens, from Gabon, are merely a key step from single-celled to multicellular organisation was a billion years for the journal Nature the discovery of life on Earth and set the fossils' three-dimensional structure using X-ray photomicrography leans it towards the great unsolved mysteries in a co-ordinates manner, or are merely a period in the evolution of life The specimens, from Gabon, are the earliest known examples of the great unsolved mysteries in the atmosphere rose rapidly.
Another oxygen surge that occurred about half a statement, whereas the former explanation.

The big question is whether the biosphere.

Scientists report in a statement, whereas the atmosphere rose rapidly.
Another oxygen Dr El Albania and colleagues describe the journal Nature the discovery of the remains.


What the fark was that?
 
2010-07-03 07:45:17 PM
SignificantPie: MayoSlather: SignificantPie: As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad

As a christian you're an idiot no matter what you say.

That is not what I heard when I was banging your mother last night.


Sigh. Maybe if I took the other side? That fossil is definitely early multicellular life!

(and I don't think Jesus meant "tell a yo mamma joke" when he admonished his followers to "turn the other cheek")
 
2010-07-03 07:48:24 PM
SignificantPie: hat is not what I heard when I was banging your mother last night.

I stand behind my prior comment.

/refusing to make obvious retaliatory mom joke
 
2010-07-03 07:49:30 PM
IoSaturnalia: SignificantPie: MayoSlather: SignificantPie: As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad

As a christian you're an idiot no matter what you say.

That is not what I heard when I was banging your mother last night.

Sigh. Maybe if I took the other side? That fossil is definitely early multicellular life!

(and I don't think Jesus meant "tell a yo mamma joke" when he admonished his followers to "turn the other cheek")


Naw, he was clearly talking about taking turns as tops.
 
2010-07-03 07:50:45 PM
The definitive study. (new window)

This rigorous paper clearly points out that the "begat" counting is flawed for several reasons. Via a well-explained and clearly very careful analysis, it is proven that 10,082 years passed between The Creation and the death of Solomon. As Solomon died in 931 BC, then carefully explained calculations indicate that the Earth is 13020 years old...

So please stop saying the earth is ~6000 years old. It is incorrect by a factor of approximately two..... I.e. Way off !!!

Anyone still spouting off about a 6000 year old earth will join my ignore list. I am sorry, but I have no patience with people that refuse to listen to the facts once they've been so carefully explained.
 
2010-07-03 07:56:19 PM
Pfft, everyone knows the world was created last Thursday.
 
2010-07-03 07:56:27 PM
SignificantPie: MayoSlather: SignificantPie: As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad

As a christian you're an idiot no matter what you say.

That is not what I heard when I was banging your mother last night.


Then I take it this is your idea of evangelizing?
 
2010-07-03 08:02:19 PM
23 posts and no bevets or letrole?

Tinfoil hats are a religion
 
2010-07-03 08:04:54 PM
Rules of atheism "Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Theism posits an eternal mind followed by contingent matter.
Atheism posits matter followed by contingent minds.



Although I am a keen advocate of freedom of opinion in all questions, it seems to me (rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and Theism hardly have any effect on the public; and that freedom of thought will best be promoted by that gradual enlightening of human understanding which follows the progress of science. I have therefore always avoided writing about religion and have confined myself to science. Possibly I have been too strongly influenced by the thought of the concern it might cause some members of my family, if in any way I lent my support to direct attacks on religion. ~ Charles Darwin

The overt rejection of logic in relation to such matters, as is apparent in the present day, can be traced back to a series of historical accidents that happened over a century ago. In the middle years of the nineteenth century the Church had become a formidable social force to be reckoned with through most of Western Europe. The power of the Church provoked resentment in some circles, and the only way forward to become freed of what seemed to be its repressive regime was to attack the very foundation of its beliefs. To such an end an intellectual movement was launched that culminated in the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. This book has been widely acclaimed and interpreted as being a justification for abandoning the biblical ideas of creation in favour of random processes. Such processes are thought initially to operate on inorganic chemicals leading to primitive life, and thereafter on living systems themselves to produce the spectacle of life in its entirety. ~ Fred Hoyle

The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith.

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence? ~ Phillip Johnson

The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces. ~ Ernst Mayr

I suspect there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty on this issue. Consider the following fantasy: the National Academy of Sciences publishes a position paper on science and religion stating that modern science leads directly to atheism. What would happen to its funding? To any federal funding of science? Every member of the Congress of the United States of America, even the two current members who are unaffiliated with any organized religion, profess to be deeply religious. I suspect that scientific leaders tread very warily on the issue of the religious implications of science for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research. And I think that many scientist feel some sympathy with the need for moral education and recognize the role that religion plays in this endeavor. These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest. ~ William Provine see also: Poll

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. ~ National Association of Biology Teachers

The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be. ~ Carl Sagan

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins. ~ Bertrand Russell

In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. ~ Julian Huxley

Every part of existence is considered to be obedient to physical law requiring no external control. The scientist's devotion to parsimony in explanation excludes the divine spirit and other extraneous agents. ~ E.O. Wilson

Science is the human search for a natural explanation of what the universe is: how it is constructed, how it came to be. ~ Niles Eldredge

The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world-forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. ~ Arthur Keith

[Darwins's notebooks] include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism -- the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' (more or less = atheist). ~ Ernst Mayr

CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN stands among the giants of Western thought because he convinced a majority of his peers that all of life shares a single, if complex, history. He taught us that we can understand life's history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine. ~ Niles Eldredge

I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things. ~ Michael Ruse

Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me: 'Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?' I would have to answer yes. ~ Richard Dawkins

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. ~ Richard Dawkins

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine

We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer - but none exists. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: 'For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. ~ Richard Dawkins

In the Theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer, so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system, that IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL MACHINE IT IS NOT REQUISITE TO KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT. This proposition will be found, on careful examination, to express in a condensed form the essential purport of the Theory and to express in a few words all Mr Darwin's meaning; who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill. ~ Robert Mackenzie Beverley see also: Daniel Dennett

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin see Pearcey below see also: Treasure Island see also Science

And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may. ~ Michael Ruse

The only alternative is to say that they did arise from muck because God's finger went out and touched that muck. That is to say, there was a non-natural process. And that's really where the action is. Either you think that complex organisms arose by non-natural phenomena, or you think that they arose by natural phenomena. If they arose by natural phenomena, they had to evolve. And that's all there is to it. ~ Richard Lewontin

Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature. ~ Phillip Johnson

There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin's theories. ~ Ernst Mayr

More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defense. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God? ~ C.S. Lewis

For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution. ~ Richard Dawkins

Darwinists know that natural selection created the animal groups that sprang suddenly to life in the Cambrian rocks (to pick a single example) not because observation supports this conclusion but because naturalistic philosophy permits no alternative. What else was available to do the job? Certainly not God -- because the whole point of positivistic science is to explain the history of life without giving God a place in it. ~ Phillip Johnson

Science is typically defined as objective investigation (discovering and testing facts)--the means for making faster airplanes and better medicines.

But there's another definition held implicitly in the scientific establishment, and it is tantamount to the philosophy of materialism or naturalism. This is the idea that science may legitimately employ only natural causes in explaining everything we observe.

The way this definition of science operates is to outlaw any questioning of naturalistic evolution. Darwinists don't ask whether life evolved from a sea of chemicals; they only ask how it evolved. They don't ask whether complex life forms evolved from simpler forms; they only ask how it happened. The presupposition is that natural forces alone must (and therefore can) account for the development of all life on earth; the only task left is to work out the details. ~ Nancy Pearcey see also: Johnson

We need to realize that methodological naturalism is the functional equivalent of a full blown metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism asserts that the material world is all there is (in the words of Carl Sagan, "the cosmos is all there ever was, is, or will be"). Methodological naturalism asks us for the sake of science to pretend that the material world is all there is. But once science comes to be taken as the only universally valid form of knowledge within a culture, it follows at once that methodological and metaphysical naturalism become for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. They are functionally equivalent. What needs to be done, therefore, is to break the grip of naturalism in both guises, methodological and metaphysical. And this happens once we realize that it was not empirical evidence, but the power of a metaphysical world view that was all along urging us to adopt methodological naturalism in the first place. ~ William Dembski

Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith. ~ Phillip Johnson

In the Conclusion, on page 136, Jones says "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator [emphasis added]." I have not read the scientific experts' testimony, and I wonder if Judge Jones has slightly distorted what they said. If they said that the theory of evolution in no way conflicts with the existence of a divine creator, then I must say that I find that claim to be disingenuous. The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator. This does not demonstrate that there is no divine creator, of course, but only shows that if there is one, it (He?) needn't have bothered to create anything, since natural selection would have taken care of all that. Would the good judge similarly agree that when a defense team in a murder trial shows that the victim died of natural causes, that this in no way conflicts with the state's contention that the death in question had an author, the accused? What's the difference? ~ Daniel Dennett

Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." ~ Phillip Johnson

We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism. ~ Charles Hodge

Darwin did more to secularize the Western world than any other single thinker in history. ~ Niles Eldredge

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine
 
2010-07-03 08:05:30 PM
either the devil put it there to trick us
or
god put it there to test our faith

either way, i hope jesus doesn't come before the pot roast is done. it smells delicious
 
2010-07-03 08:05:50 PM
IoSaturnalia: SignificantPie: As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad

No, let's not this time. It gets so tedious.



I agree (although I acknowledge SignificantPie's efforts to make a clear distinction between "religious believer" and "superstitious nitwit" and thank him for his gentle reminder that those are not synonyms).



How's about we argue about whether it's a unicellular mat or a true multi-cellular critter? I say unicellular aggregation. Too early.


I'm cautiously optimistic, although I rather doubt that these are ancestral to any living multicellular organisms, specifically because of their age, as you mentioned.

I'd like them to be legit multicellulars mainly because I think it would demonstrate that the transition to multicellularity could have happened more than once. That would be a much more interesting discovery (IMO) than "oh look, another new fossil."

But then, I'm a complete nerd, so YMMV.
 
2010-07-03 08:06:01 PM
wjllope: Anyone still spouting off about a 6000 year old earth

the only people that do this shiat around Fark are the trolling jackholes that are looking for any excuse they can to bash Christians/religion in general.

How about a scientific discussion instead of the usual "LOL Christians are teh stoopid" circle-jerk?
 
2010-07-03 08:08:52 PM
All of that and it will change not one persons mind.
 
2010-07-03 08:17:06 PM
checkmate theists

checkmate

spleef420: How about a scientific discussion instead of the usual "LOL Christians are teh stoopid" circle-jerk?

hi you must be new here, welcome
 
2010-07-03 08:21:53 PM
I drunk what: spleef420: How about a scientific discussion instead of the usual "LOL Christians are teh stoopid" circle-jerk?

hi you must be new here, welcome


I think he's on drugs.
 
2010-07-03 08:25:05 PM
sgnilward: words

You're trying too hard.
 
2010-07-03 08:27:58 PM
I drunk what: hi you must be new here, welcome

been around here longer than you.
 
2010-07-03 08:32:30 PM
SignificantPie: As a Christian, I'd like to join in on the young-Earth Creationist bashing. They are a big pile of stupid that make everyone look bad

i'll bite

so mr. xtian do you happen to know for a fact that the Earth is not young?
 
2010-07-03 08:34:51 PM
spleef420: I drunk what: hi you must be new here, welcome

been around here longer than you.


That sounds like a direct challenge to measure your internet penises or penai?

...and go.
 
2010-07-03 08:39:35 PM
spleef420: How about a scientific discussion instead of the usual "LOL Christians are teh stoopid" circle-jerk?

Science scares me. I want nothing to do with it. It is simply too clinical, too lacking in perspective due to the common human prediliction of getting married to pet theories, not of which can ever be proven, and too bereft of a wider understanding of what should be man's humble place guided by Priests and other religious leaders. Science is nothing more than an important-looking diversion that distracts men from seeking the one truth...
And I am convinced the LHC and RHIC are about to destroy the earth - if they haven't already created the mini-blackhole that will eventually do so.

I pray for us all.
 
2010-07-03 08:40:39 PM
inkblot, that was eloquently presented. Nicely done.
 
2010-07-03 08:40:41 PM
spleef420: been around here longer than you.

so has dirt but it's not learning any faster than me either...

so what are your thoughts on the science behind this find?
 
2010-07-03 08:41:42 PM
I drunk what: so what are your thoughts on the science behind this find?

it looks delicious.
 
2010-07-03 08:43:01 PM
Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: re: inkblot What the fark was that?
 
2010-07-03 09:06:21 PM
FloydA: Creationists were put on earth to test my patience.

Patience is a virtue. As a godless infidel, you should have nothing to do with it as a matter of principle.

wjllope: Science scares me. I want nothing to do with it. It is simply too clinical, too lacking in perspective due to the common human prediliction of getting married to pet theories, not of which can ever be proven, and too bereft of a wider understanding of what should be man's humble place guided by Priests and other religious leaders. Science is nothing more than an important-looking diversion that distracts men from seeking the one truth...
And I am convinced the LHC and RHIC are about to destroy the earth - if they haven't already created the mini-blackhole that will eventually do so.


(6.2/10)
 
2010-07-03 09:22:01 PM
"Man has not evolved an inch from the slime that spawned him."--Mr. Hyde, in Jekyll and Hyde Together Again
 
2010-07-03 09:25:22 PM
inkblot: sgnilward: words

You're trying too hard.


I think he's trying to preemptively use all of Bevets' material. Won't work.
 
2010-07-03 09:32:05 PM
abb3w: (6.2/10)

That could be the correct answer, but lacking any effort whatsoever on your part in exploring both the statistical and systematic errors contributing to your result, I must return your work to you with a grade of Incomplete.

Please try to understand that scientific experiments always come with a detailed error analysis. That is why science is such a waste of time. There has never been an experimental result in science that is quoted without consideration of all the sources of possible error. Simply said, science simply cannot avoid errors.
 
2010-07-03 10:18:59 PM
www.bshort.org
 
2010-07-03 10:27:36 PM
Now, what you guys don't understand is that "day" simply means "the amount of time it takes for the Earth to make a single revolution. Now, when Yahweh, lord of hosts, was making the Earth and populating it, he needed a stable platform. Even an all powerful deity prefers to work in the best conditions. He, being all powerful, simply stopped the Earth from spinning until he had things the way he wanted.

Instead of magic, he made animals the way you would make soup, he added the necessary ingredients and let it simmer for awhile. Then when things were just the way he liked them he set the Earth spinning on its axis once again.

See, simple.
 
2010-07-03 10:32:19 PM
sgnilward

Waaaay too long. So I didn't read it. Nice try for making a point and losing me in two sentences.
 
2010-07-03 10:43:55 PM
abb3w: Patience is a virtue.

And virtue is a grace.
And Grace is a hooker that doesn't wash her face.
 
2010-07-03 10:48:23 PM
deciusmaximus: Now, what you guys don't understand is that "day" simply means "the amount of time it takes for the Earth to make a single revolution. Now, when Yahweh, lord of hosts, was making the Earth and populating it, he needed a stable platform. Even an all powerful deity prefers to work in the best conditions. He, being all powerful, simply stopped the Earth from spinning until he had things the way he wanted.

Instead of magic, he made animals the way you would make soup, he added the necessary ingredients and let it simmer for awhile. Then when things were just the way he liked them he set the Earth spinning on its axis once again.

See, simple.


meh, i like my SimCity scenario better

1 "Astral plane" day = A brazillion Earth years

if you're the guy running the simulation from the PC it only takes a day for stuff to happen

if you're one of the SimCity citizens it takes for ever for stuff to happen

of course we can't completely rule out the last thursday hypothesis, which is where the logic starts getting really "interesting"

i still have this weird feeling (bias?) that we are bit over confident about our analysis of exactly how much time has passed

the last i recall (this was years ago) i believe FloydA was explaining to me that we know that our dates on really old stuff is way more accurate that our dating for sorta old stuff. none of which can actually be verified since all we can observe and account for is really young stuff, but then he said a bunch of science stuff, so it's probably all true

i just hope all of their assumptions, axioms, etc... are all accurate and true

either way, did you catch the little exchange between kent hovind and hugh ross (new window) did you have any thoughts on that you'd like to share?
 
2010-07-03 11:01:03 PM
I drunk what: is way more accurate that than our dating
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report