Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3.46-Billion-Year-Old 'Fossils' Were Not Created By Life Forms

Posted by Soulskill on from the stupid-tricksy-fossilses dept.

sciencehabit writes: What are the oldest fossils on Earth? For a long time, a 3.46-billion-year-old rock from Western Australia seemed to hold the record. A 1993 Science paper (abstract) suggested that the Apex chert contained tiny, wormy structures that could have been fossilized cell walls of some of the world's first cyanobacteria. But now there is more evidence that these structures have nothing to do with life. The elongated filaments were instead created by minerals forming in hydrothermal systems, researchers report (abstract). After the minerals were formed, carbon glommed on to the edges, leaving behind an organic signature that looked suspiciously like cell walls.

69 comments

  1. Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    After all, when you're fighting a losing battle, even a hand up from science is a welcome blessing.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      More like the Church of Robotology now that there is conclusive evidence that machines were first and created all life

      Suck it meatbags!

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by quenda · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nothing has been overturned here. Just a question settled, perhaps.

      Full disclosure: the lead author is Martin Brasier, who just happens to be the guy who discovered slightly younger 3.4 billion year old fossils just 20km away.

      http://news.sciencemag.org/201...

    3. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, so no possibility of any confirmation bias there, of course.

      I really hate it when headlines declare something like this as a fact, when clearly everyone involved is just promoting competing theories. The headline should really read 3.46-Billion-Year-Old 'Fossils' May Not Have Been Created By Life Forms. Just because someone published a paper disputing one theory and promoting another doesn't mean we can automatically assume it to be factual.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 0

      They would have to admit that the Earth isn't 6000 years old, first.

    5. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Suck it ugly bags of mostly water!

      FTFY

    6. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nothing has been overturned here. Just a question settled, perhaps.

      And this is the difference between science and religion. Since its science, we say, "we were wrong - but its cool, now we can move on to find out the truth..

      If this were religion, we'd be fighting tooth and nail, and there would be smear jobs about the scientists liberal tendencies, and stories going around on "How the lord said life was 3.46 billion years old, so it damn well WAS 3.46 million year old fossils.

      Teach the controversy brothers!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If this were religion, we'd be fighting tooth and nail

      There'd better be a fight over this, or I'd start wondering how many are on the take.

      In fact, I dare say there's always a fight, but latecomers never know it once the losers' communications are buried.

      Also note that discussions about why studying something you dug up isn't as rigorous as working with pure elements in a chemistry lab never survive when the topic can be traced back to politics, religion, or that girl we both banged in junior high that ran off with the chemistry teacher. You take it as gospel or you are shown the door, and any scientist worth his salt will tell you to quit pretending that's science because it's not.

    8. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The headline should really read 3.46-Billion-Year-Old 'Fossils' May Not Have Been Created By Life Forms.

      And then apply the rule that "may" and "may not" have exactly the same literal meaning. Any headline that contains anything like "may" or "may not" is screaming sensationalism. "Scientists dispute oldest fossils" is informative, "Fossils may not have been created by life" is identical to "Fossils may have been created by life", and is therefore meaningless.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    9. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then apply the rule that "may" and "may not" have exactly the same literal meaning.

      And then get a dictionary and your thinking cap, because they don't have the same literal meaning.

      A person with no legs may not walk on their legs.
      A person with no legs may walk on their legs.
      A person with no legs can not walk on their legs.
      A person with no legs can walk on their legs.

      Take your time.

    10. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      Because a verb may only have one interpretation, mightn't it.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    11. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      I do believe you missed the entirely appropriate Futurama reference, good sir.

    12. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You take it as gospel or you are shown the door, and any scientist worth his salt will tell you to quit pretending that's science because it's not.

      Never actually worked with actual scientists have ya? These guys and gals argue about everything, and constantly try to disprove their theories and make fun of each other's hypothese'.

      Lot's of stuff is proven wrong all the time. you accept it, and move on. Meanwhile the fundies are busy trying to insist that enough rain fell to cover the entire earth up to and over the tops of the highest mountains, and then mysteriously vanished.

      It's why science schoolbooks from 25 years ago are obsolete, but Grandpa's King James version of the bible is just as up to date as it never was.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you missed an entirely appropriate star trek reference of the same topic, good grace.

      http://www.urbandictionary.com...

    14. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're all idiots.

    15. Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Good news everyone! We're all idiots :)

      I was making a Futurama reference to the episode where Professor Farnsworth abandons Earth because Creationists (particularly Dr Banjo) keep making additional demands for the next missing link, etc... The professor ends up on a planet where robotic life is evolving at an incredibly fast rate, and he has to tell them that he was in fact their creator. Of course Bender delights in this
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      To be honest I have used the "Ugly bags of water" reference fairly recently on the article regarding the potential for highly saline water on mars
      I really did try and figure out how it fit to this story, but alas I was unable to without utterly wrecking my original premise that this was non-organic life as opposed to extromophilic life

      Good news everyone! We're all idiots... umm, whaaa... was I just saying something or dreaming it?

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
  2. One might call them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    fauxcells

  3. Old? Old. by youngone · · Score: 2

    Australia has some really old rocks alright. My favourite is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... Named after some hills in South Australia. Some weird animals there. (If they are even animals. Or plants. Both?).

    1. Re:Old? Old. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Australia has lots of weird animals. Hell, they've got moths down there that are as big as cocker spaniels. Animals that look like Jim Henson rejects. They've got freakin' yowies down there that make Sasquatch look like Pee-Wee Herman. I didn't actually see a yowie, but after I saw something that looked like a three-way cross between a rat, a jackrabbit and Dwayne Johnson, I don't doubt for a second that they exist. I went there a few years ago and visited a huge national park and it was like Land of the Lost.

      I mean, it's a nice place. Nice people. They find out you're from Chicago and you won't have to pay for another drink. Great looking women. Good food. If it wasn't for the annoying accents, you'd think you were somewhere on the West Coast. But the wildlife, man. Way too spooky for me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Old? Old. by NoMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      I saw something that looked like a three-way cross between a rat, a jackrabbit and Dwayne Johnson

      So, apart from that, what did you think of Melbourne?

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    3. Re:Old? Old. by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Seems like those nice people did a pretty good job of keeping you away from the drop bears, based on the fact that you still seem to have all your entrails. Be easy for a drop bear to get a fella' as he's staggering back from the bar...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Old? Old. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So, apart from that, what did you think of Melbourne?

      He seemed like a nice enough guy, but after eight buckets of lager he wanted to fight everyone in the place. Fortunately the bartender kept a tranq gun behind the bar for these apparently frequent occasions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Old? Old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U WOT M8?
      I'll bash yer fookin hed in, swear on me mum!

    6. Re:Old? Old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you're from Chicago ... Great looking women. Good food.

      There's the explanation for the latter, right there a few words to the front.

    7. Re:Old? Old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And dropbears!
      Don't forget to put a fork behind your ear if venturing into the bush!

    8. Re:Old? Old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia, literally the land time forgot.

    9. Re:Old? Old. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Just dab some vegemite behind your ears and they'll leave you be.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:Old? Old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you missed the ones that look like a cross between a T-rex, a tapeworm, and Iggy Pop.

    11. Re:Old? Old. by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Chicago? Why?

      When I was in Ireland, I never bought another drink once people discovered I'd been to Boston. Which I though was odd, but it made a kind of sense given the large Irish population. It was like a kind of Irish promised land.

      What's the Aussie connection to the Windy City?

    12. Re:Old? Old. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What's the Aussie connection to the Windy City?

      They think we're all connected to the Mafia, of course. You know, Al Capone and all that stuff. My Italian surname must have fired their imaginations, even though I assured them I hadn't tommygunned anyone in years.

      I had (and this is 100% true) one guy ask me if I thought he could get "work" with the Chicago Mob if he came here. He was a big lad with neck muscles that started above his ears and three different women's names tattooed to his arms. I started to tell him it doesn't really work like that, but he was so earnest that I just couldn't break his heart.

      The funny part is that these were academics and graduate students at the University of Melbourne. I thought I was hanging with some rugby players or a motorcycle club until one of the guys started talking some graduate seminar he was teaching.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Old? Old. by jfengel · · Score: 1

      That is totally not the answer I was expecting. That's awesome. Thanks.

  4. It was all created by God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you avoid the truth, you will erroneously discover something else.

    1. Re:It was all created by God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ignore observations of the world, you will erroneously invent religion.

    2. Re:It was all created by God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boring troll is boring.

    3. Re:It was all created by God by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

      The real troll here is the one who modded this funny so it would show up instead of being automatically hidden/collapsed.

  5. Re:FIrst post for fossils by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Funny

    And to think, you're the successful product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. I guess this is proof that not every branch or individual is viable.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  6. Do you think that some distant.... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... future descendant might try and argue, by the same reasoning, that the "people" (as we currently call them) in this time were not really alive either... that all we actually are is a bunch of organic compounds arranged in a pattern that suspiciously behaves like what they consider to be life, but actually isn't.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe... just 1% from being the great apes, they are just 1% different from lemurs and they are just a 1% from rats. * We look at other mammals and say "oh look they have grasp of some emotions and basic understanding, but no more then a toddler."

      So the age will come when we a species has a much firmer grasp on reality that they will look back on us, and see us as toddlers or a lower animal? If some humans get there while others don't, would those elevated humans be willing to eat (or use in someway) other humans? "Oh just snap their necks, they only have a rudimentary understanding of pain"

      *percentages have not been verified, just a guess used for demonstrating the idea.

    2. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Just like most systems, there is a complexity barrier at which certain features can manifest beyond. A self hosting replication system must have a certain degree of complexity in order for it to work, thus we exist in a universe and at a scale and temperature where the chaos is low enough to allow persistence of information and change of energy levels, but not too high to prevent structure. Even though we are trillions of replicating systems with error correction features with internal colonies of single cells that aid in everything from digestion to fighting wars against even smaller viruses, we don't look at something that is not a self hosting replicator (a virus) and wonder if it is a self hosting replicator.

      Sentience is like that too. It emerges at a complexity level at which the systems is capable of internal representation of not only its reproduction information, but immediate external stimulus, histories of events, predictive powers based on said experience, internalized models of hypothetical events (including theories of how one came into such a being), and self reflection upon the same (the cybernetic loop must be closed in order for fractal complexity magnification).

      No truly sentient life form, no matter how much more amazingly complex, will look down upon a sentient life form and deem them non sentient. It's not a relative thing, the features expressed exist or they don't. When one gains this understanding it become a lot easier to study science, do business, influence culture, and utilize bureaucracy because one can see how these cybernetic systems are like other forms of life -- DNA has been hypothesizing with experimental mutations and preserving the beneficial information for its eons of science; Businesses have been competing as organic entities since they were first formed; Cultures have been aware of themselves and gained introspection since the first behavioral consensus; And, Bureaucracy has been sensing deciding and acting long before the terms "scientific method" or "cybernetics" were coined.

      True, a higher intelligence could understand vastly more of the universe, but do not ignore the fractal nature of knowledge, they will know the parts more intimately. It's folly to think that what would be cosmic gods compared to us wouldn't be able to classify us as having the features we do. We may not grasp some far more grand understanding, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't be sentient compared to them -- simply because our brain waves weren't powerful enough to spawn matter with a thought, for instance, wouldn't mean we didn't have brain waves.

    3. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, there's not even a definition for sentience, let alone a physical explanation for the phenomena.
      It's a bit early to go around making absurd claims about it.

    4. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by VirginMary · · Score: 3, Interesting

      maybe... just 1% from being the great apes

      If you meant that humans are 1% different from other Great Apes you would be wrong. Humans are classified as Great Apes. If not you'd have some other Great Apes (bonobos and chimps) actually being closer to us than to the rest of the Great Apes. It was only ignorance or possibly human arrogance that in the past led to humans not being included with the other Great Apes.

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    5. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just as well. Space nutters immediately jump to aliens and related fantasies.. If their God gene had been turned on, they would have turned out to be errant muslims. How do you tell an errant muslim from a shitty muslim? Hint: Muslims are good at math, but there is a divine reason why they never invented the airplane.
      I think it will be quite a while before science identifies the gene that identifies the Jews as Gods chosen people. The problem for people that don't understand God is largely that they will pretty much believe anything else that helps them avoid personal responsibility to the truthh.. Face it. If your argument against God is that some moron thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, or that God occassionally wipes out whole tribes of really fucked up arabs. You might be a little dumber than your shallow ego allows you to believe. ThIt doesn't matter whether a person with an 8th grade educatio calls himself a scientist, or a born again, the point is that their understanding is a little too low to make the cut.

    6. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      A self hosting replication system must have a certain degree of complexity in order for it to work

      This is a tautology. Also, that level of complexity might be quite low.

    7. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Plenty of humans deny that animals, insects, etc. are sentient (able to perceive or feel things), why would you assume more advanced organisms might not deny it of us?

      Or perhaps you actually meant sapient (wise, or attempting to appear wise.), in which case would you say the great apes are sapient - they appear to have a relatively sophisticated understanding of the world, design and make tools, and can even be taught the basics of sign language (lacking the fine vocal control required for human speech)

      There is no clear bright line on which you can say this being possesses X, while that slightly less sophisticated being does not - it all exists on a continuous spectrum. I've found that pretty much anyone claiming the existence of such a line has conveniently defined it to be in a place that entitles them to preferential treatment, while excluding anything that might impair their ability to exploit the surrounding world however they want. Hell, some people even draw the line so that it excludes many fellow humans. .Aliens come to Earth who are as far beyond us as we are beyond ants, and I'm betting that either they regard us with, at best, the compassion of a Buddhist walking around an anthill. At worst - look at this beautiful uninhabited planet, there's nothing here but some slightly clever animals that haven't even managed to develop fusion yet, and possess little more than a crude mockery of consciousness.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are a few clear bright lines, just one of which is that no other species teaches/learns a skill solely through communication. For example, an adult chimp will show a young one how to fashion a reed into a tool used to retrieve yummy termites from a termite mound, but the perpetuation of this skill is not achieved by communication alone. This sort of thing has come up on /. numerous times - I'm surprised so many of the frequent posters aren't aware of it (or perhaps simply reject it).

      - T

    9. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember a complaint from Cuvier that he'd like to put humans in with other Great Apes, but thought he'd never hear the end of it from priests.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That is simply a comment on the sophistication of their communication, not on the underlying consciousness. Apes typically have a fairly limited vocabulary in nature, maybe a few hundred "words" as I recall, though that's still being researched.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. The ability to teach and learn solely through communication is clearly distinct from teaching and learning through demonstration (with or without) language. I'll note that even with the few "words" most wild apes have, they still do not convey knowledge solely through the use of that limited vocabulary. Furthermore, captive apes which have been taught larger vocabularies also have not been able to achieve that milestone on their own.

      - T

    12. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Go ahead - try to teach someone how to build a decent termite-stick using a vocabulary of only a few hundred general-purpose words. I'd venture a guess that it can't be done. Hell, try to teach a fellow human a detailed skill using language alone - the results will be radically less than satisfactory - you'll never find a master swordsmith, painter, mechanic, knitter, etc,etc,etc that hasn't had extensive education by demonstration - words are just too imprecise with far too low an information density to do the job effectively.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:Do you think that some distant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead - try to teach someone how to build a decent termite-stick using a vocabulary of only a few hundred general-purpose words. I'd venture a guess that it can't be done. Hell, try to teach a fellow human a detailed skill using language alone - the results will be radically less than satisfactory...

      First, why should we assume that the vocabulary must contain only "general purpose" words? Since termite munching is a common activity, the wild ape vocabulary very well could contain words relevant to the task, let alone the fact that I included captive apes with taught vocabularies as part of the rationale for my assertions. The vocabulary only needs to be large enough to allow such communication, if not in the wild then in captive apes.

      Second, there should be no expectation of immediate proficiency on the part of the learner. Even simple skills may need practice. I could describe to you in fairly simple terms what you need to do to sink a basketball from the half-court line, but even if I convey that knowledge perfectly and you understand it perfectly, we can expect that you'll need a bit of practice before you will be ready to replace Lebron James. However, it's entirely conceivable for you to achieve that proficiency through practice without demonstration from me (In truth, I would be a poor demonstrator, even though I understand how to do it and could communicate that effectively, but that's a slightly different bright line - the ability to communicate things you cannot actually demonstrate). You are conflating the application of communicated information with the act of communicating the information.

      ...you'll never find a master swordsmith, painter, mechanic, knitter, etc,etc,etc that hasn't had extensive education by demonstration - words are just too imprecise with far too low an information density to do the job effectively.

      I made no mention of mastery, so I could say that you're moving the goalposts. Instead I'll re-assert that honing a skill is distinct from communication, and add that in the (probably long) line of prior masters of any skill, there must have been (at least) one which has (re)discovered specific aspects of the skill required for mastery, thus it is at least possible that mastery may come from practice alone once the essentials of the skill have been effectively communicated.

      Let's look at it a different way. Can every human being become a master swordsmith or become just as proficient at basketball as Lebron James? Assuming we can agree that the answer to that is "No", then it follows that we should be able to agree that if we convey the essentials of such skills to another human being solely through communication, and they apply what they learn solely by receiving that communication, even if the results are less than excellent, we have still demonstrated a transfer of knowledge without demonstration. Apes don't do this, not even with imperfect results, nor even in the most rudimentary of ways. Moreover, even captive apes taught a larger vocabulary don't do this. We can teach them the verb "peel" and the noun "orange", and we have yet to observe one ape conveying this to another without demonstration, solely through communication. I don't mean swordsmith-level perfected ape orange peeling - they don't (presumably can't) do it at the simplest level. That is a bright line.

      I think we must still agree to disagree.

      - T

  7. Not by lifeforms as we know them, anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they find any triangular, striated marks on these rocks, by any chance?

  8. Waste Dump? by docwatson223 · · Score: 2

    I swear some ancient civilization used Australia as a waste dump and testing grounds for some seriously bad sh** - the frigging Platypus is weird enough but folks forget the damned thing is *poisonous*, too - then add in the rest of the the things that are pretty much post-Apocalypse like the other floral and fauna that are incredibly lethal (e.g., the snakes) and it can make you wonder 'wtf happened here??'

    1. Re:Waste Dump? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      I swear some ancient civilization used Australia as a waste dump and testing grounds for some seriously bad sh**

      OK, we confess. It was us.

      Yours faithfully,
          England.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Waste Dump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the male is poisonous. And only during breeding season.
      Geez, the way you're carrying on you'd think they were dangerous!
      Now, sandgropers... well, less said the better.

  9. Great great grandpa rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean we evolved from rocks?

  10. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The elongated filaments were instead created by minerals forming in hydrothermal systems, researchers report

    Someone peed away their Foster's on a very hot day (by modern standards), and the outflow cooled over some rocks.

    This happened a very long time ago.

  11. Re: Baptists are already writing this week's sermo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have an obvious unit error. Might want to evolve that part of your brain before you go ranting again.

  12. The evolution conspiracy by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Someone already pointed out how the creationists are already going to use this in their favor as evidence that fossils aren't the product or evolution or somesuch.

    But it goes both ways. They often rant about how the scientific literature is biased against anything that goes against the evolution dogma. Although these non-life fossils don't really contradict any OTHER fossil evidence, nevertheless, here we have an example of a publication about exactly the sort of thing that the creationists say would never get published.

  13. Natural cell-wall precursor? by JohnCharlesMontalban · · Score: 2

    To me, at least, it doesn't sound like they had "nothing to do with" life - I wonder if it could be a precursor to life. If mineral formations were forming "cell-wall-like" structures made of nonmetals, that sounds like it might have been a naturally forming scaffold for the formation of the earliest cell walls. Natural small enclosures with attraction to carbon and nonmetals seems like they'd make a really good substrate for infinite separate runs of the natural experiment leading up to the first replicating molecules.

  14. Re:Where do you guys get this junk? by alva_edison · · Score: 1

    From what I understand the 6000 figure comes from adding up the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis, and then tying the events in Genesis to a known historical event.
    In order for person x to have existed during event y, Adam was created in year z.
    I believe the x is normally Moses and the y is the reign of Ramses II of Egypt, but I could be mistaken.

    --
    He effected a bored affect.
  15. Re:Oldest fossils? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    No, old does not imply stupid. Look all the stupid racists, classists and chauvinists running around today in various countries.

  16. Fossils? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    "3.46-Billion-Year-Old 'Fossils' Were Not Created By Life Forms"
    That would make them... rocks. Not fossils.

  17. I really really hate it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuff like this you mean right?