Slashdot Mirror
World's Oldest Rocks Found
Smivs writes "The BBC reports that Earth's most ancient rocks, with an age of 4.28 billion years, have been found on the shore of Hudson Bay, Canada. Writing in Science journal, a team reports finding that a sample of Nuvvuagittuq greenstone is 250 million years older than any rocks known. It may even hold evidence of activity by ancient life forms. If so, it would be the earliest evidence of life on Earth — but co-author Don Francis cautioned that this had not been established. 'The rocks contain a very special chemical signature — one that can only be found in rocks which are very, very old,' he said."
Isn't it inaccurate to say "World's oldest rocks found" ? I'm a fan of Schroedinger and all that, but just because their the oldest we've observed doesn't mean they are the oldest.
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
Reddit's headline for this story: Oldest rocks on Earth found in northern Canada - 5999.98 years old! No, just kidding, 4.28 Billion.
So we're all descendants of Canadians, eh?
No. Intelligent Design cannot be taught in a scientific manner, unless it is to say "There was no Intelligent Design."
The whole "teach the controversy" is an attempt to trick people into teaching ID, and is a means of validating it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Because McCain is older than dirt.
Isn't it obvious? Initially they thought they found the oldest rock on earth, but later found out it was McCain in his summer home up north relaxing a bit from the strenuous campaign.
It is impossible to teach Intelligent Design in a scientific manner, because Intelligent Design has /absolutely nothing whatsoever/ to do with science, in any way, shape or form.
Intelligent Design is 100% pure religious doctrine and dogma.
Looks like ancient shamans used a DWORD in the Good book to represent the age of the earth. When it was downloaded, the figure of 4.3 billion years overflowed and wrapped around to around 6000 years.
Problem solved.
It's funny though, because, you know, as much as everyone deservedly knocks the 6000 year old figure, few actually probe the ancient conceit that drove it - that is, the universe could not exist without mankind, and so, it more or less exists to serve mankind, and therefor we can spread out across the world and conquer it.
Now, with all of our fancy science of course, we know much better. We know that the universe is billions of years old, and that, we've not actually found a shred of life within it that is not from our planet. Not a peep out of SETI, a hello from another world - not even a cell on Mars- nothing. So, it really looks like, that, we can spread across the world and conquer it.
So, the upshot is that ancient man and today's scientists drew exactly the same conclusion. If we can see it, we can take it. All of this mumbo jumbo about the age of the thing doesn't matter a bit. In the mind of the Pope and Goddard alike, its -ours-.
This is my sig.
An unfunny and played out one.
By what name do you wish to be mourned?
No, it's only the fundamentalist Christians who would think that, in the rest of the world you can be a Christian without believing every single word in the Bible is the absolute truth.
BTW, I'm not a Christian, I'm just saying you shouldn't judge a faith or set of beliefs by the crazy extremists, otherwise you end up with the "because most suicide bombers are Muslims, most Muslims are suicide bombers" type of argument.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Err, depends what you mean by ID, the current ID push seems to based almost entirely on creatiionism and driven by Christian Fundies that are trying to use it as a way to get creationism into schools and the public consciousness in general.
If there was another ID years ago, that's fine, but what most people seem to mean by ID these days is creationism with the word "god" removed.
"If your Bible says that people were made from mud, then either: that Bible story is utterly and completely mistaken; or it is deliberately lying to you."
Spoken like someone who wishes this to be true and in his arrogance claims it must be true.
Why do you have a problem with someone having faith in a religion if they don't let it screw up how they view the world?
Behold! You have someone who believes in God AND thinks evolution is a right clever idea! But rather be grateful that not everyone is insane, instead of seeing hope for the future, you have to attack the person.
You sir, are a moron.
If you are *ever* going to begin convincing people that science has nothing to do with religion (which it doesn't) then STOP attacking them on theological grounds.
Embrace this guy's beliefs the next time some archo-conservative nut tells you the universe is 6000 years old and the world was made in 3 days and that there is no point planning for the future because the world is going to end anyways.
"Any story that tries to tell it otherwise is simply incorrect. Wrong. Utterly mistaken. There is nothing else to it."
You've never heard of allegory then have you? Take a literature class and learn something. There is a reason civilizations have myths and legends they tell stories about, and its NOT because we like to be entertained (though it helps).
Some atheists need to stop treating everything as a personal attack. The egotism sets my teeth on edge.
Behold! You have someone who believes in God AND thinks evolution is a right clever idea! But rather be grateful that not everyone is insane, instead of seeing hope for the future, you have to attack the person.
I think atheists take this view because it's completely 100% contradictory. Both points are mutually exclusive. They can't overlap in the slightest, even though some people try to warp it to fit their brainwashed religious view.
The belief in a (christian) God and evolution don't mesh because if we were made in God's image then we couldn't have evolved from single-cell organisms. Unless God is a single-cell organism, in that case we've evolved to become something better - but now I've just moved into blasphemy, and used the subjective 'better'.
So if you're going to try to convince an atheist that you're 'one of them' yet you still cling to an ancient dogma that is racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-science, and tribal, don't be surprised when they rebuff you.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry