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.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Primitive Earthlings' best construction was no match for a creature with acid for blood   (csmonitor.com) divider line 29
    More: Interesting, long-living organisms, Cambrian period, Evan Rachel Wood, filter feeders, corals, reefs, Namibia, Ediacaran  
•       •       •

6852 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Jun 2014 at 10:07 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-29 08:55:05 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
/oblig
 
2014-06-29 10:22:44 PM  
FTFA: Scientists in Africa discover 548-million-year old structures. Who built them?

Also FTFA, Immediately following the above: Ancient coral-like creatures living in the sea constructed a vast network of reefs in what is today Namibia, say scientists.

What the hell is the point of making the headline a question when you (a) already know the answer and (b) immediately reveal it?
 
2014-06-29 10:41:21 PM  
Not as annoying as some sites that have a headline then summary which is nothing more than a copy of the first few paragraphs of the article right below.
 
2014-06-29 10:46:19 PM  
Christian Science Monitor? Structures that are more than 6-million years old?
 
2014-06-29 10:48:33 PM  
ArcadianRefugee:  What the hell is the point of making the headline a question when you (a) already know the answer and (b) immediately reveal it?

Clicks.  Consider us all lucky that the headline didn't say "and you won't BELIEVE who built them!"  It looks like we're in for a spell of that annoying construction.  Even my soccer news feed does it.  "We spoke to Maradona about the World Cup and what he said was shocking!"
 
2014-06-29 11:04:57 PM  
Looks like a union job.
 
2014-06-29 11:12:48 PM  

Dinobot: Christian Science Monitor? Structures that are more than 6-million years old?


1. Don't you mean 6000?
2. CSM is actually a pretty decent site
 
2014-06-29 11:22:24 PM  

New Farkin User Name: Dinobot: Christian Science Monitor? Structures that are more than 6-million years old?

1. Don't you mean 6000?
2. CSM is actually a pretty decent site


1. You're right, I made a mistake
2. I know, was just fooling.
 
2014-06-29 11:52:17 PM  

New Farkin User Name: Dinobot: Christian Science Monitor? Structures that are more than 6-million years old?

1. Don't you mean 6000?
2. CSM is actually a pretty decent site


Yeah, I don't get what their shtick is these days. I seem to catch they have an aversion to transfusions, but they seem to accept science as understanding how their invisible father figure built this universe.
 
2014-06-30 12:07:28 AM  
"Who" built them?
Not sure if CSM is trolling or really stupid.
 
2014-06-30 12:21:05 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: ArcadianRefugee:  What the hell is the point of making the headline a question when you (a) already know the answer and (b) immediately reveal it?

Clicks.  Consider us all lucky that the headline didn't say "and you won't BELIEVE who built them!"  It looks like we're in for a spell of that annoying construction.  Even my soccer news feed does it.  "We spoke to Maradona about the World Cup and what he said was shocking!"


Stuff like this kind of reminds me that we aren't nearly as smart as we think we are.
 
2014-06-30 12:42:30 AM  
Earthlings must have been pretty damn primitive 548 million years ago.
 
2014-06-30 12:43:11 AM  
Oh, and some farking pictures would have been nice.
 
2014-06-30 02:01:25 AM  

New Farkin User Name: Dinobot: Christian Science Monitor? Structures that are more than 6-million years old?

1. Don't you mean 6000?
2. CSM is actually a pretty decent site


Earlier today I just happened to Google whether close to 50% of Amercans actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old and found this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/10/how-many-americans-actually-be li eve-the-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/

A couple of key points.  Just because someone believes that God created humans within the last 10,000 years (as the Gallup poll asked) doesn't necessarily mean they believe the earth is that young.

Rosenau points out that the Gallup poll specifically asks about human origins, and does so in a religious context. But if Americans are asked if they believe whether plants and animals have evolved over millions of years (regardless of the reason why), a substantially higher number say yes - 60 percent did in a 2009 Pew poll, for example.

Removing religious context and human origins, people are much less likely to say that we're living on a young earth. In another 2009 survey, only 18 percent agreed with the statement that "the earth is less than 10,000 years old," for example.

But Rosenau thinks the number of truly committed young-earth creationists is even smaller than that.

Since the early 1980s, the National Science Board has asked Americans if they accept the idea that the continents have been moving for millions of years - and 80 percent agree. Ten percent say they don't know, and only another ten percent firmly reject it.


I was dragged to 2 different churches a LOT (Sundays weren't enough apparently)  when I was growing up and I never heard this belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  Neither believed in evolution, but if they believed in a "young earth" they kept it to themselves.  Nobody thought Jesus rode dinosaurs either.
 
2014-06-30 02:08:34 AM  

wildcardjack: Yeah, I don't get what their shtick is these days. I seem to catch they have an aversion to transfusions, but they seem to accept science as understanding how their invisible father figure built this universe.


Christian Science is a religion that has kind of a misleading name, but otherwise is sort of Mormonism with some of the crazier bits of the modifications to the mythology removed.

Or Christianity plus some arbitrary freemasonry chucked in, if you want to look at it from another direction.
 
2014-06-30 04:29:22 AM  

gfid: New Farkin User Name: Dinobot: Christian Science Monitor? Structures that are more than 6-million years old?

1. Don't you mean 6000?
2. CSM is actually a pretty decent site

Earlier today I just happened to Google whether close to 50% of Amercans actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old and found this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/10/how-many-americans-actually-be li eve-the-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/

A couple of key points.  Just because someone believes that God created humans within the last 10,000 years (as the Gallup poll asked) doesn't necessarily mean they believe the earth is that young.

Rosenau points out that the Gallup poll specifically asks about human origins, and does so in a religious context. But if Americans are asked if they believe whether plants and animals have evolved over millions of years (regardless of the reason why), a substantially higher number say yes - 60 percent did in a 2009 Pew poll, for example.

Removing religious context and human origins, people are much less likely to say that we're living on a young earth. In another 2009 survey, only 18 percent agreed with the statement that "the earth is less than 10,000 years old," for example.

But Rosenau thinks the number of truly committed young-earth creationists is even smaller than that.

Since the early 1980s, the National Science Board has asked Americans if they accept the idea that the continents have been moving for millions of years - and 80 percent agree. Ten percent say they don't know, and only another ten percent firmly reject it.

I was dragged to 2 different churches a LOT (Sundays weren't enough apparently)  when I was growing up and I never heard this belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  Neither believed in evolution, but if they believed in a "young earth" they kept it to themselves.  Nobody thought Jesus rode dinosaurs either.


There was a story earlier this week that covered it pretty well.

The Real Reason Many Americans Seem So Stupid (But Aren't)

TL;DR version: people tend to answer survey questions differently depending on whether the wording challenges their religious or ideological identities.
 
2014-06-30 04:44:21 AM  

gfid: Removing religious context and human origins, people are much less likely to say that we're living on a young earth


Woah woah woah, you mean when you cherry pick your results you get a different result?
 
2014-06-30 07:17:24 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: ArcadianRefugee:  What the hell is the point of making the headline a question when you (a) already know the answer and (b) immediately reveal it?

Clicks.  Consider us all lucky that the headline didn't say "and you won't BELIEVE who built them!"  It looks like we're in for a spell of that annoying construction.  Even my soccer news feed does it.  "We spoke to Maradona about the World Cup and what he said was shocking!"


I think it goes hand in hand with the current sad state of what passes for journalism because, invariably, the story will consist of a quote along the lines of "I enjoy futball.  I prefer when my team wins, rather than loses."

Shocking!
 
2014-06-30 07:47:31 AM  

gfid: I was dragged to 2 different churches a LOT (Sundays weren't enough apparently) when I was growing up and I never heard this belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Neither believed in evolution, but if they believed in a "young earth" they kept it to themselves. Nobody thought Jesus rode dinosaurs either.


theoccultsection.com
 
2014-06-30 10:20:32 AM  

gfid: New Farkin User Name: Dinobot: Christian Science Monitor? Structures that are more than 6-million years old?

1. Don't you mean 6000?
2. CSM is actually a pretty decent site

Earlier today I just happened to Google whether close to 50% of Amercans actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old and found this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/10/how-many-americans-actually-be li eve-the-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/

A couple of key points.  Just because someone believes that God created humans within the last 10,000 years (as the Gallup poll asked) doesn't necessarily mean they believe the earth is that young.

Rosenau points out that the Gallup poll specifically asks about human origins, and does so in a religious context. But if Americans are asked if they believe whether plants and animals have evolved over millions of years (regardless of the reason why), a substantially higher number say yes - 60 percent did in a 2009 Pew poll, for example.

Removing religious context and human origins, people are much less likely to say that we're living on a young earth. In another 2009 survey, only 18 percent agreed with the statement that "the earth is less than 10,000 years old," for example.

But Rosenau thinks the number of truly committed young-earth creationists is even smaller than that.

Since the early 1980s, the National Science Board has asked Americans if they accept the idea that the continents have been moving for millions of years - and 80 percent agree. Ten percent say they don't know, and only another ten percent firmly reject it.

I was dragged to 2 different churches a LOT (Sundays weren't enough apparently)  when I was growing up and I never heard this belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  Neither believed in evolution, but if they believed in a "young earth" they kept it to themselves.  Nobody thought Jesus rode dinosaurs either.


Of course not, why would a dinosaur ride other dinosaurs?
 
2014-06-30 10:53:56 AM  
img.fark.net


Well.. crap... You are not going to be able to read this are you?
 
2014-06-30 12:16:59 PM  
Just link to it

Shadow Blasko: [img.fark.net image 250x1500]


Well.. crap... You are not going to be able to read this are you?

 
2014-06-30 12:58:49 PM  

Caine_Hazen: Just link to it Shadow Blasko: [img.fark.net image 250x1500]


Well.. crap... You are not going to be able to read this are you?


Yeah.. Working on that .. Standby

 http://i.imgur.com/309O7tJ.jpg

Here you go... That should do it..


I just thought it was pretty cool. Remembered reading it earlier this year...
 
2014-06-30 02:00:22 PM  

born_yesterday: Manfred J. Hattan: ArcadianRefugee:  What the hell is the point of making the headline a question when you (a) already know the answer and (b) immediately reveal it?

Clicks.  Consider us all lucky that the headline didn't say "and you won't BELIEVE who built them!"  It looks like we're in for a spell of that annoying construction.  Even my soccer news feed does it.  "We spoke to Maradona about the World Cup and what he said was shocking!"

I think it goes hand in hand with the current sad state of what passes for journalism because, invariably, the story will consist of a quote along the lines of "I enjoy futball.  I prefer when my team wins, rather than loses."

Shocking!


Monty Python's "Literary Football".
 
2014-06-30 03:48:42 PM  

Shadow Blasko: Caine_Hazen: Just link to it Shadow Blasko: [img.fark.net image 250x1500]


Well.. crap... You are not going to be able to read this are you?

Yeah.. Working on that .. Standby

 http://i.imgur.com/309O7tJ.jpg

Here you go... That should do it..


I just thought it was pretty cool. Remembered reading it earlier this year...


Where did that come from? It's pretty interesting.
 
2014-06-30 03:53:15 PM  
I saw it floating around some of the sci-fi writers tumblr blogs back in early March.

I've heard similar things to that.. but I really like the way they framed it. Maybe we might just be badasses after all... Someday we will know.

We could very well be the extremeophiles of the universe!
 
2014-06-30 11:43:21 PM  

Shadow Blasko: Well.. crap... You are not going to be able to read this are you?


I could read it fine on mobile. Just had poke that popup magnify icon that opened it in a new window.
 
2014-07-01 02:51:43 AM  
 
2014-07-01 08:45:56 AM  
Acid or maybe a pebble of sand caught in a vortex.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report