Slashdot Mirror


World's Oldest Fossils Found In Greenland (washingtonpost.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from Washington Post: Scientists probing a newly exposed, formerly snow-covered outcropping in Greenland claim they have discovered the oldest fossils ever seen, the remnants of microbial mats that lived 3.7 billion years ago. It's a stunning announcement in a scientific field that is always contentious. But if confirmed, this would push the established fossil record more than 200 million years deeper into the Earth's early history, and provide support for the view that life appeared very soon after the Earth formed and may be commonplace throughout the universe. A team of Australian geologists announced their discovery in a paper titled "Rapid emergence of life shown by discovery of 3,700-million-year-old microbial structures," published Wednesday in Nature. The report adds: "Subsequent laboratory analysis established that the formation is 3.7 billion years old, and turned up additional chemical signatures consistent with a biological origin for the conical structures, Allen Nutman, a University of Wollongong geologist, said. These scientists determined the age of the rocks through radiometric dating, measuring the abundance of elements created by the steady decay of uranium."

76 comments

  1. More, and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With more evidence that planets with life will form by the trillions, it's only math to theorize that we recycle the universe by observing the higgs particle, otherwise the odds of us being on this planet rather than the trillions to come are astronomically against us. Only by destoying the possibility of these trillions of planets forming can we rationalize the odds of us being here now.

    1. Re:More, and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying we need a death star?

    2. Re:More, and more by Maritz · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter how unlikely it is, if the universe is infinite (e.g. eternal inflation exists). Then it really doesn't matter, other than how many universe diameters on average you have to travel before seeing a copy of earth. I've seen figures like ten to the ten to the one-twenty universe diameters. Can't be bothered looking up how to do superscript in this window. ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:More, and more by NotAPK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are two trivial ways to do powers of ten in ASCII characters. 10^6 is one way, and can even be written long hand such as: 1.2345 x 10^6. The more compact form uses "e" for exponent and is called "scientific" or "engineering" notation, though some insist that "engineering" notation only allows multiples of 3 for the powers of ten. Anyway, I digress, use exponent notation like this: 1.234e6 or be explicit with the sign 1.234e+6 and for small values use 1.234e-6.

      I think you were writing the range: "figures like 10^10 to 10^120 universe diameters"

    4. Re:More, and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no evidence that probabilities are affected by interference from other universes.

  2. Re:Wrong by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    A slashdot meme... any story on evolution and someone will post something inane about 6000 years with the first 5 posts.

  3. No doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World's Oldest Fossils Found In Greenland

    ...where they were observed using VAX 8600's.

    1. Re:No doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MicroVAX 2500s, thank you; self-respecting bacteria expect more!

  4. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And he didn't even have the audacity to say 60XY years old. eventually the creationist universe estimation with be within the margin of error of the actual age of the universe

  5. No, they are in Texas, not Greenland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both of them - George and Barbara.

  6. Re:Wrong by Orgasmatron · · Score: 0

    At least we now have proof of anthropogenic global warming. After all, the current global warming must be unprecedented otherwise previous generations would have found the toys God hid under the glaciers when he was creating the world.

    P.S. Only 6000 years old? What are you a caveman? Wake up and smell the 6020s dude.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  7. Re:Wrong by BeauHD · · Score: 0

    The Earth is only 6,000 years old and I can see Russia from my house.

  8. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus went around like Johnny Appleseed and planted fossils to fool the non-believers.

  9. Re:Wrong by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Right. Levinthals paradox makes the Earths age a DONTCARE. Order-of proton life-time to form one amuzing polypeptide. Since life can't happen at all, it can only happen once.

    Actually it's about folding into a specific configuration rather than "forming". Also it assumes no mechanism other than chance, which is where lots of these arguments go astray.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  10. Re: Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't trouble yourself over global warming. There is a clear and easy solution. Build giant rockets on the equator to push the planet into a more distant orbit.

  11. Re:xD by antifoidulus · · Score: 0

    Pardon me sir, do you have any Grey Poupon?

  12. Re:Wrong by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    You're a bit early. By Bishop Ussher's chronology, the world will be 6019 years old in about 7 weeks.

    That said, although Ussher's chronology is the best known, other biblical/historical chronologies exist varying by decades or more from this.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  13. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've seen the "it's just a theory" meme repeated so many times by Americans that I'm really starting to question the education level of most of the Americans. Most? Yes, most (meaning the majority).

  14. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I love Tina Fay quotes! She's snarky, so she must be smart.

  15. Just a theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The numbers are always inflated for click-baiting.

  16. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see Russia from my house.

    So, hows the weather on Little Diomede?

  17. Re: Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Almighty Zeus, the world is 80,000 years ood.

    Who am I to believe, you, or the Lord of Olympus?

  18. Someone finally found... by MindPrison · · Score: 2

    ...Cowboy Neal.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  19. Shoggoths? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The conical structures are fossils of the Great Race of Yith.

  20. Re:Wrong by dargaud · · Score: 3, Informative
    Yeah, and now they are exporting this shit in other countries. There are now antivaxers with public stands on european markets. Fake schoolbook publishers with anti-evolution agenda who send free books to public schools. Hell, I've a website with plenty of Antarctic pictures and I recently received email from a guy who was trying to get me to admit that at the poles there are hidden proofs that the earth is flat !!!

    Stupidity of this magnitude should make you too poor to be able to waste your time on trying to export stupid beliefs like that onto other people.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  21. is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by HBI · · Score: 1

    I do believe this a serious article.

    That said, the commentary is a little speculative. With a sample size of one, the conclusions we can draw about life across the universe are very limited.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      With a sample size of one, the conclusions we can draw about life across the universe are very limited.

      If this was all we had to go on, certainly. However, we do have a fairly good outline of ideas about how life arose from chemistry on this planet, and it doesn't look like there was anything very unusual about Earth; in fact, it looks a lot like life is something that is almost inevitable, when the conditions are not too hostile. Finding very early fossils fit into this - they don't prove that we are right, but it does seem that life on Earth arose as soon as the conditions had barely settled down. Of course, most of us would love for life to be abundant all across the universe, so it doesn't take much to persuade us - that's something to keep in mind.

    2. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by HBI · · Score: 1

      Did panspermia get ruled out while I wasn't watching?

      If that ends up being the reason life arose here, then we actually don't know that much about the chemistry that begat life. I have seen lots of ideas about how we might end up with amino acids but not a lot about how that would turn into a cell.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The conclusions are limited, but the quicker life popped up, the more likely it is that it's somehow easier to get started. Of course it's possible you get your 20 heads in a row on the first 20 coin flips, but that's not likely. And, if you know the coin is biased then when you get your first 20 in a row tells you something about how biased the coin is.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by Sique · · Score: 2

      Panspermia in general is just some side hypothesis without much science behind. Organic compounds are quite aboundant in space, and they form spontaneoulsly if conditions are right, so there is no need to hypotheze that the organic compounds on Earth had some extraterrestical origin. Some of them might actually come from somewhere else, but organic compounds tend to be quite fragile when it comes to the conditions around a meteorite impact, and the few molecules that survive tend to be drown into lakes and puddles with billions of other organic molecules already there.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speculative commentary ("Rapid emergence of life shown") is part of the *title* of the article. You also said you believed that this is a serious article. How can the article be both serious and 100% troll? Make up your mind.

    6. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Panspermia looks less likely to be necessary as time goes on. It's a more convoluted explanation.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    7. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Panspermia is an added complexity that answers nothing. Anyone who has ever thought about it for more than 15 minutes is pissed off for having wasted their time. Superman was a science fiction story that was written to explore philosophical questions, not scientific questions.
      GOD, you people are stupid.

    8. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the video I've watched about evolution vs intelligent design/creationism had an actual geologist on it. He noted that geologists don't just take one rock from somewhere and test it. They take a *rap ton of samples and run them all through the tests. They also look at things like the rock column and other features. This is not going to just be a single data point. It will be a large number of data points taken from a single location by a single team in a single "moment". As with all science further confirmation is imperative but the results are interesting enough that hopefully someone will do so.

    9. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with panspermia, other than suggesting that life could survive thousands or millions of years in hard vacuum in the very hostile environment of a young solar system to seed another planet than the one it originated on is simply "Why do we need it as an explanation." Since the current abiogenesis theories mainly require some organic chemistry and lots of excess energy, is there some reason the early Earth, with all the bombardments and likely huge amounts amount of energy available via volcanism and other geological forces, wouldn't fit that bill?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that rocks of this age are pretty damned rare, and only a few locations on Earth have them. And really, this ID geologist (about as unreliable a source as I can imagine) isn't really representing how geologists work at all. Where there are lots of samples, that might make things easier, but where there isn't, you work with what you have. It's not as if stromatolites are rare, and there are a few locations where there are very ancient stromatolites, so if you find one that dates earlier, why is that somehow invalid?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:is there a reason the posting is 100% troll? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      That's because this isn't the first time someone has claimed to find the oldest, only for it to turn out the structures were formed by the action of scalding water on mineral sediments. Nick Lane describes this in some detail in his book, Life Ascending.

  22. Re:Wrong by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

    "Ha ha ha! I am a prankster God. I am killing me!" - Bill Hicks

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  23. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using straw-man arguments as you do, do not say much about your level of education either.

  24. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That an editor here (with a long shameful record of idiotic mistakes in summaries) resorted to a false quote about seeing Russia, and a straw-man argument about 6000 year old earth(borrowed from an obvious troll), says a lot about the ignorance and irrationality prevailing at slashdot now.
    Pity! This was once a great website.

  25. Re:Wrong by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's stupid, everyone knows the Earth isn't flat. The poles are there to hide the entrances to the INSIDE of the earth where the lizard men live. How could the earth have an inside anyway if it was flat? That makes no sense, see.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  26. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the kind of contribution that some cum-guzzler makes to a scientific conversation when they don't know shit about real science.

  27. Re:Wrong by Maritz · · Score: 1

    You're hallucinating straw men. Scary stuff. Seriously, nothing he said is a straw man. Go learn what the hell that means.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  28. Re:Wrong by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Literally have no idea what you're complaining about.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  29. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where did those people get the 6000 year old earth from? I always thought they used the Byzantine calendar which set the year 1 on the presumed creation of the earth according their bible. Since the ancient Greek were the inventors of the Catholic church and all the sects after many schisms I think they had the authority to choose a 'starting point of the universe'. It isn't anything scientific, it is just pure dogmatism. But the Byzantine calendar is now in the year 7525. So according to the 'inventors' of Christianity the world is exactly 7525 years old.

    But I only hear about 6000 years and never about the 'exact date' of 7525 Byzantine calendar = 2016 in our calendar. How did they get to the number 6000?

  30. No, the world's oldest fossils. . . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 0

    . . . .are found in the United States Senate. . . .

  31. Re:Wrong by sudon't · · Score: 1

    Stupidity is one of our biggest exports. See also: drug and alcohol prohibition.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  32. Re:Wrong by sudon't · · Score: 0

    One consistent thing I've noticed about people who call others "stupid" is that they very often are making the very mistake they're calling out. And if not that, their post will be full of grammatical, logical, and/or spelling mistakes. I have a theory about that, but unfortunately, I have to get to work right now.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  33. Re:Wrong by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    "Yeah, and now they are exporting this shit in other countries. There are now antivaxers with public stands on european markets."

    And need I mention the anti-GMO sentiment all over Europe, and Germany with its nuclear hysteria? If there is one thing Hollywood is good at, it's spreading ideas.

  34. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen the "it's just a theory" meme repeated so many times by Americans that I'm really starting to question the education level of most of the Americans.

    Why, have you seen "most" Americans repeating this crud? These idiots are widely mocked here. But your one example makes me question the education level of most overly-smug Eurotrash.

  35. Re:Wrong by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

    Read up on it. It's interesting.

    Bishop Ussher, along with many others, were curious to know how old the universe was. So he went to The Bible and started figuring things out. We knew dates - the razing the Temple, Babylon Captivity - but how to figure out the beginning.

    Go to The Bible and add up the dates. 6 days for creation + one day of rest + this lifetime + that lifetime until you get to a known date. Then, voila, you have the age of the universe.

    Simple really.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  36. Re:Wrong by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh I've been modded up. Doesn't say why. C'mon slashdot give me an "Informative"!

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  37. Re:Wrong by dwillden · · Score: 1

    That and Brawndo, It's got Electolytes!

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  38. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just a theory anyway

  39. 3700-million-year-old microbial structures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so it begins.

  40. Re:Wrong by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

    But the Earth IS flat. Well, locally flat. Sort of. A manifold, at any rate. Except for all of the fractally scaled bumps that extend down to the molecular level.

    Come to think of it, the Earth isn't flat. In fact, it doesn't even have a surface. Just a highly irregular atomic-scale semi-fractal zone of Pauli-electrostatic intermolecular repulsion. The best that can be said is that at some particular coarse-grained scale, it is locally highly reminiscent of a truly flat planar surface osculating to a point in the average, sometimes.

    Now the 6000 year bit -- yes, the earth has been around for 6000 years. Just like I've been around for 100% of the last two minutes. Unless one gets really serious about quantum fluctuations, where one could argue -- not necessarily perfectly reasonably -- that every elementary particle in my body flickers in and out of existence on the Heisenberg scale where \delta (mc^2) \delta t \approx \hbar. Following that argument, there is a near certainty that you could pick any instant you like and insist that the Earth "came into being" within an teeny bit of that instant...

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  41. Re: Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Ood are not a unit of time. The Ood are not amused by this.

  42. Was it Helped? by PineHall · · Score: 1

    Pushing back the evidence of life implies one of the following is true.
    1) Life (abiogenesis) is easy to get started and the Universe is full of life.
    2) It was an extremely rare event for life to start on Earth.
    3) Life started somewhere else and ended up on Earth.
    4) Life had outside help in getting started.
    I personally believe that life is extremely hard to get going and with the evidence of life showing up even earlier, it makes it more likely that there was some outside help, i.e. a supernatural event.

    1. Re:Was it Helped? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Pushing back the evidence of life implies one of the following is true.

      1) Life (abiogenesis) is easy to get started and the Universe is full of life.

      Well, it shows that it is liklier easier than expected. If it took only a 300 million years to start here then the best guess at the mode is of course 300 million years, say down from 500 million.

      That of course implies that the window for life to evolve is likely shorter than we previously expected and naturally the number of places with a short window must be greater than or equal to the number of places with a longer window (in any remotely statistically sane universe, greater).

      As the minimum window shortens, the number of opportunities for life to get started expands.

      I don't think that proves the universe is full of life.

      2) It was an extremely rare event for life to start on Earth.

      I don't see how it implies that. We don't know precisely how rare the event was but as the earliest point moves back, the event looks less rare than before.

      3) Life started somewhere else and ended up on Earth.

      Not really sure how it implies that. No matter what the distribution of life seeds arriving from outside, the narrower the window, the smaller chance life had to arrive from the outside. So it implies this option is less likely, but not by how much.

      4) Life had outside help in getting started.

      You've just deferred the problem, though to whatever gave rise to the outside helper.

      i.e. a supernatural event.

      Possibly, but the probability increases from something minute to something marginally less minute. We've never seen any evidence of anything supernatural existing that's held up to scrutiny, so the chance of supernatural things existing is very small at this point.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Was it Helped? by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      i.e. a supernatural event.

      Possibly, but the probability increases from something minute to something marginally less minute. We've never seen any evidence of anything supernatural existing that's held up to scrutiny, so the chance of supernatural things existing is very small at this point.

      I personally don't follow any particular religion, but I don't think the tiny little corner of the universe and short time span humans have observed is enough to rule out the supernatural. The more we learn about the universe, the more we discover we don't know, such that denying at least the possibility of the supernatural is as much of a leap of faith in science keeping faith in a conventional religion.

    3. Re:Was it Helped? by PineHall · · Score: 1

      Pushing back the evidence of life implies one of the following is true.

      1) Life (abiogenesis) is easy to get started and the Universe is full of life.

      Well, it shows that it is liklier easier than expected. If it took only a 300 million years to start here then the best guess at the mode is of course 300 million years, say down from 500 million.

      That of course implies that the window for life to evolve is likely shorter than we previously expected and naturally the number of places with a short window must be greater than or equal to the number of places with a longer window (in any remotely statistically sane universe, greater).

      As the minimum window shortens, the number of opportunities for life to get started expands.

      I don't think that proves the universe is full of life.

      2) It was an extremely rare event for life to start on Earth.

      I don't see how it implies that. We don't know precisely how rare the event was but as the earliest point moves back, the event looks less rare than before.

      I see things differently. I believe you are saying that since the time period is shorter, the probability for life must be greater. (Correct me if I am wrong.) I start with a fixed (but unknown) small probability. Then by shortening the time period one makes it less likely life would form, because there are less cases where the needed ideal conditions exist for life to form.

      3) Life started somewhere else and ended up on Earth.

      Not really sure how it implies that. No matter what the distribution of life seeds arriving from outside, the narrower the window, the smaller chance life had to arrive from the outside. So it implies this option is less likely, but not by how much.

      4) Life had outside help in getting started.

      You've just deferred the problem, though to whatever gave rise to the outside helper.

      i.e. a supernatural event.

      Possibly, but the probability increases from something minute to something marginally less minute. We've never seen any evidence of anything supernatural existing that's held up to scrutiny, so the chance of supernatural things existing is very small at this point.

      Using that fixed probability and the shorten time period, I see the need to look for other opportunities, such as panspermia or a purposeful outside intervention (which may be a supernatural intervention). Personally I think there are enough stories of the supernatural miracles that you can not discount them. (One example is the rigorous process the Catholic Church goes through to verify miracles in their sainthood process. They have had atheists look at the evidence of a miracle to try to disprove it.)

    4. Re:Was it Helped? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Leaving aside the particular points (which others have already addressed), there's another implication:

      5) It takes a long time--longer than we thought--for complex (multicellular) life to arise from simple life. The Ediacaran period (just prior to the Cambrian) is near the beginning of complex life, and is dated to roughly 0.6 billion years ago. If the Greenland rocks are evidence of bacterial life 3.7 billion years ago, then it took about 3 billion years for life to make the transition from bacterial to complex.

      That in turn probably implies:

      6) Life we find elsewhere in the universe is likely to be bacterial, not even unintelligent plant/ animal life.

      (6) is a little less certain than (5); one could turn it around and say that if the average habitable planet we encounter is at least 4 or 5 billion years old, we're likely to encounter complex life. But we're back to the one data point problem; for all we know, the rise of complex life on Earth (probably triggered by some kind of cell-level symbiosis that gave rise to eukaryotic life) was a lucky event, and without that we'd all be bacteria.

  43. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You choose to remian ignorant and lick editor's arse? Feel free!

  44. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... nothing he said is a straw man ..."

    Well, you are free to remain willfully blind, ignorant, and irrational.

  45. Re: Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What! thats before GNU Hurd was started.

  46. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, why not? You seem to have already decided this is the way to go. Every case that dargaud mentioned are real cases, not made-up examples to be defenseless against an argument.

  47. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Straw-men arguments involve fictional people who can't be defended, not arguments pushed by actual real live people.

  48. Why fundamentalists can’t accept deep time by Theovon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Evolution implies death before sin. If there was death before sin, then “original sin” and Jesus’ atonment for that sin are meaningless. They’re not going to accept something that breaks their religion, because they have a deathly (no pun intended) fear of not having a life after death. They are also wrapped up in fear over some mythical “moral decline” that they believe is caused by moral relativism that they seem to think evolution implies.

    What’s interesting is to uncover the inconsistences in their beliefs. They claim to read the Bible literally or “at face value.” But when it comes to original sin, the Bible is only clear about HUMAN SPIRITUAL death as a result of original sin. They extend this to physical death of all animals. But when pressed, they cannot identify specific Bible verses that speak to this. Rather, they fall back on an assumption they make about the meaning of “very good” which they ASSUME (a tendency they say is a problem with evolutionists) means there could have been no animal death before human sin. They presume too much to know the mind of God and what God may have thought was “very good” beyond what their Bible claims while trying to convince us that the primary source of truth should be the Bible.

    They go on to create a subculture where evidence is something we can take or leave as we like as it fits or doesn’t fit our preconceptions. Then they turn around and call evolution a preconception. It was Christians who came up with the idea!

  49. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A slashdot meme... any story on evolution and someone will post something inane about 6000 years with the first 5 posts.

    Somehow I can't reconcile that statement coming from someone with a 5-digit UID, Did it seriously take you that long to figure it out, or were you sitting on it all this time, finally deciding to unleash upon us an explosive demonstration of your intellectual prowess?

    Seriously, weren't we all thinking the same thing?

    One thing is for sure, Mr. Obvious - I will put in a recommendation that you be promoted to Captain.

  50. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two words: Pita Earth
    Yes, just like pita bread the earth is in fact flat AND hollow. Old theories get out of the way!!!!

  51. Re:Why fundamentalists can’t accept deep tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They presume too much to know the mind of God...

    No. They recognize the direct word of God in Christ's teachings against evolution, not wasting all his time just telling us to love one another.
    What? Oh, nevermind.