Scientists Confirm There Was Life On Earth 3.5 Billion Years Ago (qz.com)

Paleobiologists have confirmed today that life forms existed some 3.5 billion years ago. The new study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, uses the latest techniques to date the most aged remains available. Quartz reports: The research, led by paleobiologist William Schopf of the University of California-Los Angeles and geoscientist John Valley of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has been in the works for what seems a long time to most, but which the academics know is merely a blink of the eye in terms of life on Earth. The specimens in question, mostly now-extinct bacteria and microbes, were found in 1982 at the Apex Chert, a rock formation in Western Australia, in a piece of rock. In 1993, based on radiometric analyses of the rock, and the shape of fossils, Schopf dated them as biological beings that existed 3.45 billion years ago. The rock held the earliest direct evidence of life, Schopf thought, and inferred from it that creatures existed over a billion years earlier than anyone previously believed. But some scientists argued that this claim was too speculative and that the microfossils, invisible to the naked eye, were really just weirdly-shaped bits of rock, strange minerals that only seem to contain biological specimens but do not.

Since then, technology has improved and Schopf and Valley teamed up to devise a new way to analyze the rock specimen, which now lives in the London Museum of Natural History. Valley spent 10 years developing a method to analyze the individual species that are shaped like tiny cylinders and filaments. Any type of organic substance (including both rock and microbe) contains a characteristic mix of carbon isotopes. Using a secondary ion mass spectrometer (a very rare tool, one of which is housed at the University of Wisconsin), the scientists were able to separate the carbon in each fossil into isotopes. That way, they could measure the carbon-isotope makeup of each fossil, and compare those to fossil-less rocks from the same era. [...] After analyzing the microfossils individually, they identified five species, concluding that two were photosynthesizers, two were methane-consuming organisms, and one produced methane.

Comments

Evolution

[theweatherelectric]

And 3.5 billion years later life spends its days on Slashdot. Progress?

Re: Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

And 3.5 billion years later, Donald Trump evolved. Life doesn't always get it right

Re:Evolution

[AmiMoJo]

If you call this a life...

Re: Evolution

[Opportunist]

Trump IS proof for evolution.

I mean, look at this man and then talk to me with a straight face about "Intelligent Design".

Re: Evolution

[Maritz]

Donald Trump, and Marxism. Those are your two choices, people. Choose... uhm, 'wisely'.

Re: Evolution

[Maritz]

Yeah Trump wasn't designed. 'Congealed' maybe.

Re: Evolution

[mark-t]

It seems that it could be construed as evidence that man's ascent from simpler lifeforms hasn't even started yet.

Re: Evolution

[Opportunist]

Well, some remained simpler than others.

Re:Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Life? Don't talk to me about life. Here I am, brain the size of a planet... And I have this pain in the diodes all down my left side.

-- Marvin

Re: Evolution

[Brockmire]

Has moderation added "bot" yet?

Eukaryotes, pfffft [Re:Evolution]

[Tablizer]

And 3.5 billion years later life spends its days on Slashdot. Progress?

Back in my day we had to force ourselves to commit mitosis and grow flagellum to troll. It was painful; be grateful.

Great, Old Ones!

[Anonymous Coward]

Precambrian life forms are precambrian. Tekeli-li!

Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Anonymous Coward]

That means it only took life 1 billion years to evolve (shorter if you consider the early earth was inhospitable). That means it is really easy for life to evolve or strong support for pan-spermia ;that life was seeded from outside the solar system.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

A billion years still is a very, very long time. A billion years is less time than it took from single celled organism to humans.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

Sorry. MORE TIME than it took from ... In other words, first multicellular organisms came into existence less than a billion years ago.

I need more coffee.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[religionofpeas]

And you said single where you meant multi. More coffee.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

Yeah, a billion years ago there were still single celled organisms and only 200 mia later we had multi... you know what I mean, now let me sleep!

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Dutch Gun]

I've never understood the support for panspermia as an origin of life theory. Or rather, I don't understand the continued enthusiasm given how much we've learned in the past few decades about pre-biotic chemistry - other than perhaps the exotic notion that we're evolved from alien life. There is nothing magical about the chemistry found in our biological makeup. All the building blocks are here, and scientists are already fabricating self-replicating, highly organized biological molecules in lab conditions that could easily be precursors to organic life. Occam's Razor seems to lead to a more mundane conclusion: that given appropriate conditions, simple organic life springs into existence fairly easily and quickly (in cosmic timescales at least).

I'd argue that the fast formation of life supports local bio-genesis much more strongly than seeding from elsewhere. After all, seeding would tend to happen at some random time in a planet's history, because it has nothing to do with local star system conditions. A seeding event that occurs immediately after local conditions are favorable to life seems incredibly improbable to me.

To help visualize, look at the life timeline on Earth. Almost as soon as there's liquid water, life springs up. Keep in mind that Earth still has another couple billion years left in it's predicted lifespan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

   

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[gweihir]

You misinterpret the state of the art in Science by jumping to invalid conclusions.

Nobody has yet created anything comparable to living matter. Chemical self-replication is meaningless. Hence it is still unclear whether life can actually be created from non-living matter in an evolutionary process. Panspermia is one possible explanation, although it has the same problem, just once removed.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[religionofpeas]

Panspermia doesn't solve the question anyway. It merely moves it to a different place.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

Chemical self-replication IS basically what life is. If the "building blocks" are available, self replicating molecules will do just that. At what point you call that "life" is debatable, but in the end, this is what life does. Replicate itself from available resources.

You will not observe this again. At least not on this planet. We have an oxidizing atmosphere that pretty much destroys anything that could remotely form like this. There is a reason why the great oxygenation event nearly killed life off. Plus, we don't have a few million years that we could possibly wait.

Personally, I'm more inclined to think that life can and does simply happen when the conditions are right. But, hey, it could just as well be that an interstellar probe from some alien civilization (crash-) landed on our planet those 4.something billion years ago and one of the mechanics assembling it sneezed on it before launching it.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

Actually, it did a lot. Survived the late heavy bombardment, developed a few ways to synthesize ATP, invented the nucleus which led to the development of eukaryotes, they developed flagella and carnivore behaviour, viruses came into existence, and my personal favorite, they came up with sexual reproduction.

And you now waste all that with a flick of your hand...

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[quonset]

Hence it is still unclear whether life can actually be created from non-living matter in an evolutionary process.

Except for every single baby, human or otherwise, which is born everyday, right? Unless you think sperm or an egg is living matter.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[cold fjord]

Is it turtles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H alien probes all the way down?

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[religionofpeas]

Unless you think sperm or an egg is living matter.

It almost is. And the small part that's missing was removed on purpose. It's like removing a brick from a house, and then saying that you can build a house by putting the brick back.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Maritz]

Agree. Limited panspermia e.g. Earth exchanging rocks with Mars, sure. I bet some Earth biota made it to Mars. Might even still be there.

But interstellar/intergalactic panspermia? Doubt it very much. And doubt very much that it's required as an explanation for life's origin.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[mark-t]

Just because it happened so quickly doesn't mean it was easy, or necessarily likely.

A person can, after all, win a lottery the very first time they play. When we have such a small data set to work with, we are not in any kind of position to know how likely or unlikely life actually is.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

Yes, no, maybe, anything is basically speculation right now. I don't know if there's any way to test for something like this and without, trying to even formulate a hypothesis is moot.

But I'm neither geophysicist nor microbiologist. Maybe someone does know a way to at least determine what is and what is not possible.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[mark-t]

Kind of like Intelligent Design, or even the Simulation theory.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Ol Olsoc]

Actually, it did a lot. Survived the late heavy bombardment, developed a few ways to synthesize ATP, invented the nucleus which led to the development of eukaryotes, they developed flagella and carnivore behaviour, viruses came into existence, and my personal favorite, they came up with sexual reproduction.

And you now waste all that with a flick of your hand...

It s quite possible that life originated here on earth more than once, and of course there is the possibility that it came form Mars. Regardless, the study of life on earth is incredibly fascinating. So much simply fits together with the physics. Although I'm not an expert, I've done a lot of personal research, and the pieces are fitting pretty nicely.

Sure beats the concept of Kangaroos swimming from Australia to the middle east so they wouldn't drown in a flood.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[gweihir]

Chemical self-replication IS basically what life is. If the "building blocks" are available, self replicating molecules will do just that. At what point you call that "life" is debatable, but in the end, this is what life does. Replicate itself from available resources.

And fail. Your invalid generalization results in an invalid conclusion. You probably also think that icicles forming (which is basically a physical self-replication) is "life". Incidentally, do you think self-replicating computer malware is "life"?

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[gweihir]

You will seriously argue that sperm and eggs are non-living? Do you also think the earth is flat?

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[drinkypoo]

I've never understood the support for panspermia as an origin of life theory.

People want to believe that their folks will show up and get them off of this rock

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

There is of course more to "life" than just reproduction. A metabolism for example. The definition is not easy and I am fairly sure that the transition from "dead matter" to "living matter" is quite fluid without a hard cut you could point to and say "that's it" without some arbitrary definition.

And no, icicles are not self replicating. Water changing its aggregate state has nothing to do with self-replication. If you talked about crystals forming, you'd actually be closer to it, still no cigar, though. What's missing is the rearranging of molecules along with redox-reactions to form new molecules out of them. Basically what we consider a metabolism. What a growing crystal does is basically ordering already pre-existing molecules.

But, again, I am fairly sure that it is anything but easy to pinpoint exactly at what point we're only dealing with some curious chemical reactions and at what point we're actually dealing with "life". I'd guess the moment you can speak of life with some certainty is when carbon fixation becomes possible for an "organism" (I'll use the term loosely here).

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Camel Pilot]

Yep... there has to be a brute fact some where along the line. And that is the mystery. However, insisting that there is an eternal all powerful, all knowing, all beneficial (whatever that means) Necessary Being is the most absurd.

Re: Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Brockmire]

Well, first, one microorganism took one of their own ribs and made a female companion... then realized their parts differed in an almost opposite way and the rest is history.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[hawkfish]

alien probes all the way down?

And now I can't scrub that image out of my brain...

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

Once you have solved the Kangaroo problem, try solving it for Eucalyptus trees.

You know, the whole flood story would gain a lot of credibility if they claimed it was a local event and that god simply created everything else later. I mean, think about it, the whole book takes place in that rather small area between Egypt and Babylon, no mention of any part of Europe or even the Americas... One could get the impression, whoever wrote it never went past Egypt and Babylon...

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

It most likely happened similar to what we can still observe today in some single celled organisms, where asexual reproduction is complemented by lateral gene transfer between individuals. While asexual cloning sure is advantageous in situations where the environmental situation does not change because it certainly is a faster way to multiply a population, a mechanism that allows the recombination of genetic traits has advantages if adaptation is required.

The precursor to "true" sexual reproduction was most likely aforementioned lateral gene transfer, where cells would increase their survival chances by basically throwing what everyone has on the table and seeing what works best in the given environment. Mostly by try and error, with those that were "lucky" to collect the right traits flourished while those that didn't perished, but in the end the population survived.

For a reason why sexual reproduction is beneficial to a species and its evolution, you might want to consult the relevant Wikipedia article, it's actually pretty well written.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Ol Olsoc]

You know, the whole flood story would gain a lot of credibility if they claimed it was a local event and that god simply created everything else later. I mean, think about it, the whole book takes place in that rather small area between Egypt and Babylon, no mention of any part of Europe or even the Americas... One could get the impression, whoever wrote it never went past Egypt and Babylon...

There is some evidence that there was a cataclysmic breach in the strait of Gibraltar that allowed the Atlantic ocean to rather rapidly fill the Mediterranean, sea area. Some settlements have been found that are now under water. A theory called the Zanclean Fllood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... proposes a rather quick re-filling of the sea, perhaps in as short a time as a few months. This happened, the only controversy is the length of time it took to refill the sea. must admit that a few months would have been about as scary an event as they get.

And doesn't "Parting the Red Sea" sound like what happens during a tsunami? Stories get re-told a few thousand times, and there ya go.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

IIRC it was the Bosporus that budged, not Gibraltar, but the effect certainly would have been the same for anyone living there. The general area between Sinai and Babylon is filled with stories about devastating floods, the Gilgamesh epos for example (which is not only older than any biblical report about a flood but its parts about the flood are also most likely already a copy of an older Babylonian flood and creation myth) and a few Akkadian texts that tell pretty much the same story... most of them sane enough, though, to talk about a great flood that sure was devastating and killed "the people" but not a world wide event.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Ol Olsoc]

IIRC it was the Bosporus that budged, not Gibraltar, but the effect certainly would have been the same for anyone living there. The general area between Sinai and Babylon is filled with stories about devastating floods, the Gilgamesh epos for example (which is not only older than any biblical report about a flood but its parts about the flood are also most likely already a copy of an older Babylonian flood and creation myth) and a few Akkadian texts that tell pretty much the same story... most of them sane enough, though, to talk about a great flood that sure was devastating and killed "the people" but not a world wide event.

I've always suspected that the Desert God's versio of the flooding was largely based on the oral traditions, and how good storytellers can amp up a story and create great entertainment. The Desert God's flood is an awesome story from the point of people who don't have knowledge of a world larger than what they see, but simple back of the envelope calculations show the amount of water needed to fully cover the entire globe is simply mind boggling and needed to come from somewher and go somewhere and itwould have killed everything in the oceans, first as salt water mixed with fresh, killing the fressh water species, then as the water became increasingly fresh, killed the salt water species. So a story that was mostly accepted as allegory until the early 20th century, became a fundamentalist demand for literal accuracy.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[Opportunist]

The fun part is that a bible thumping con arti... I mean, entrepreneur, Ken Ham, actually proved the whole ark myth impossible: By building one. I'll spare you the financial details, but it's a fun story by itself, and supporting well my theory that religion is the only scam the government stays out of.

Well, said Ark has the (more or less) accurate proportions of what the bible says the ark should be like. It took 1000 people 2 years to build it. Considering a construction cost of the alleged 100 millions, and modestly assuming that the average worker will cost you 50,000 a year (which is already a bargain, but I doubt that Ken's handing out too much money if he doesn't really have to), we're looking at roughly 2,000 man-years of labour. In a country with perfect infrastructure where you have easy and cheap access to resources, where you can buy pre-fab construction materials and use the aid of power tools and cranes, where you can rely on delivery trucks to haul your lumber, where you can purchase nails without having to make them yourself, where you can easily buy fresh and healthy food, not wasting any time on growing, harvesting or hunting it...

Few people might know this, but back in the "good old biblical times", people spent most of their time trying to ensure that there is actually enough food available to continue. They didn't work 12 hours a day on such a project because they could just go to the next Burger King and stuff their face.

So we're looking at 2,000 man-years of labour, using huge trucks and cranes (want to calculate the man-hours in a gallon of gasoline? It ain't pretty...), power tools and drills (or how about the amount of man-hours in a KWh of electricity?)...

So, no, it is NOT possible that Noah and his 3 sons would build such a ship in a few decades. I know, according to the bible, Noah lived to the ripe age of 600something years, but even Methusalah would not have reached an age high enough to see this Ark's completion.

Re:Age of Earth 4.5 billion

[tehcyder]

You made a mistake. HA!

That's never happened on the internet before!

Re:don't be silly the bible says

[Anonymous Coward]

The bible never said that.

Re:One for those species who could not adapt

[Opportunist]

The biggest joke here is that most of those you claim "adapted" don't even think evolution is real and instead prefer to believe that their imaginary friend poofed everything into existence with magic.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Opportunist]

Here's the thing: I don't mind hearing Merry Christmas (but I slowly start to DO mind hearing "Last Christmas". C'mon. George is dead, let the song follow). You wish me a Merry Christmas, I'll probably reply in kind.

What bothers me is the asshats that get ballistic if you wish them "Happy Holidays". Who then berate you for wishing them well that "this is a christian nation".

NO. Fuck it, it's not. It's a secular nation. If you want to live in a theocracy, go to fucking Iran. And take a good look at the whole area to get an idea what it leads to if you base your laws on the power fantasies written down by bigoted barbarians millennia ago when it was a-ok to just bash someone's head in because he has the wrong imaginary friend.

Re:Did you not get the memo?

[Opportunist]

You're off by about a factor of a million, but otherwise surprisingly accurate.

Evolution != "Progress"

[mha]

Evolution is about adaptation to a changing environment.

"Progress" has no part in any of it - what does that word even mean? That word implies a goal (how else can you make progress if not towards some goal).

Re:Evolution != "Progress"

[religionofpeas]

Most life on Earth isn't intelligent. Actually, most life doesn't even have nerve cells.

Re: Evolution != "Progress"

[slashrio]

There is no goal, there simply is elimination if you don't reproduce.
That's all evolution is about, it has no goal.

Re:Evolution != "Progress"

[slashrio]

Evolution isn't 'about' anything, it just happens while you look at it.

Re:Evolution != "Progress"

[Ol Olsoc]

Most life on Earth isn't intelligent. Actually, most life doesn't even have nerve cells.

I fear that's my fault, having hogged up all of it. People are always telling me I have a lot of nerve.

Re:There real story here is

[Opportunist]

Should've looked closer, there's a few senators old enough that there's some mold growing on them.

INTELLIGENT life, on the other hand, ...

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[goose-incarnated]

Here's the thing: I don't mind hearing Merry Christmas (but I slowly start to DO mind hearing "Last Christmas". C'mon. George is dead, let the song follow). You wish me a Merry Christmas, I'll probably reply in kind.

What bothers me is the asshats that get ballistic if you wish them "Happy Holidays".

I've actually never had that happen to me. They give me strange looks, certainly, but no stranger than my neighbour who occasionally sends me videos of this or that person "proving" intelligent design because he thinks that being an atheist is an irrational decision.

To be honest, I'm not sure how to respond to someone who goes ballistic for *any* greeting. Raised eyebrows? I can handle that. Religious propaganda/literature? Sure, I'll just throw it away anyway. Proselytizing? I'm not gonna argue, just get away if I can.

But anger? What the hell do you do there? Get angry back? That doesn't help - now there's *two* angry people.

I wonder...

[wbr1]

Could the same procedure be used on Alan Hills 84001?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Old news

[Maury Markowitz]

It has been generally accepted that there was life at 3.45Gya since 2013.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20131113/DAA1VSC01.html

Re: Old news

[Brockmire]

Haha, it's like finding out Mr.Skin already existed and you've been wasting your time making your own site.

Happy Birth day Life!

[sabbede]

You old bastard.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[sabbede]

Wait, he only said, "The Bible never said that", which you then agreed with. For all you know, the commentor was a devout Catholic.

Re:And it ended Nov. 2016

[sabbede]

Not all life, just that of very many turkeys. But that happens every November.

Re:One for those species who could not adapt

[Maritz]

The rule of thumb on slashdot appears to be:

Do I like this?

If the answer is yes, it is true. It's real.

If the answer is no, then it is false. It isn't real.

So the christian ones. Plenty of them. They don't like evolution, so it isn't real. Libertarian types who don't like feeling guilty about flying or running AC all summer - they don't like the idea of climate change. So that's bullshit too.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Maritz]

"devout atheist"

Yeah. I devoutly don't collect stamps.

You forgot to say that you're lying, and not an atheist at all.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Maritz]

Oh no, the scary muslims are coming for us all. Grow a pair and stop being such a fucking pussy. Their bullshit is just as valid as yours.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Anonymous Coward]

That is entirely possible. What's an eath?

Re:Final

[Maritz]

And it was Zeus all along. Hahaha suckers.

Re:don't be silly the bible says

[edxwelch]

Well, they were only off by 4,539,994,000 years.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Jason Levine]

If you want to live in a theocracy, go to fucking Iran. And take a good look at the whole area to get an idea what it leads to if you base your laws on the power fantasies written down by bigoted barbarians millennia ago when it was a-ok to just bash someone's head in because he has the wrong imaginary friend.

The problem is that the people who would want to turn us into a theocracy always assume that THEY would be the ones determining which religion is in charge and THEY would be the ones bashing in someone else's head for following the wrong religion (or no religion). They never think that they might be on the other end of that head bashing.

Re:One for those species who could not adapt

[Opportunist]

I do think the data points to climate change being real, I still run the AC all Summer. I just don't give a fuck about whether the planet is still hospitable to human life after I'm gone.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Opportunist]

Christian values changed society so that it no longer depended on Christian values.

You might want to explain this. It doesn't exactly make a lot of sense by itself.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Opportunist]

And you think that would mean that it looks any different than the Middle East does today? You have the same shit going on there, one group claiming to have the moral higher ground so they can suppress the rest, and the rest fighting back. Why does anyone think this would be different in any way if we tried the same shit here?

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Ol Olsoc]

>

What bothers me is the asshats that get ballistic if you wish them "Happy Holidays". Who then berate you for wishing them well that "this is a christian nation"..

Will you join us in the Ban Bing Crosby movement?

He's the bastard that started the heresy with that damn Happy Holiday song.

And he sung Little Drummer Boy with that creepy hippie David Bowie. Jesus has been waterboarding Crosby ever since that evil dude died.

In the meantime, Thanksgiving, Saint Nicholas Day, Fiesta of Our Lady of Guadalupe, St. Lucia Day, Hanukkah, Christmas Day, Three Kings Day/Epiphany, Boxing Day, Kwanzaa, Omisoka, Yule, Saturnalia, Veteran's day, New Years day, Thanksgiving

And Festivus for the restofus!

There are a lot of holidays, and some that aren't Christmas are celebrated by a lot of people. Many that aren't Christmas are Christian Holidays that these right thinking people have chosen to ignore. November, December, and New Years are considered the Holiday season because there is a traffic jam of them right now.

So - Happy Holidays folks,may you enjoy good health and happiness. May the new year bring you success. If that insults you or you don't like that, Go Fuck Yourselves.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Jason Levine]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it'd be any different than the Middle East. I was just pointing out that the people who want a theocracy in the US assume that they would be in charge and thus somehow immune to any bad stuff that happens thanks to a theocracy. This is (one reason) why you can't rationally discuss this with them. They assume there will be no downside because they are in charge and wouldn't do anything to hurt themselves. Therefore, any downside is "someone else's" problem, not theirs.

Of course the reality is that, were a theocracy instituted in the US, the "ruling religion" might be a slightly different sect of Christianity and they'd wind up on the receiving end of religious-based persecution. However, these kinds of people aren't very big on recognizing reality.

Jim...

[slashrio]

It's a being, but not as we know it.

Re:Dating by Radioactive half-lives proves nothing

[slashrio]

Something tells me that you're a fan of authority...

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[slashrio]

it's 'butt fuck', you butt fuck.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Anonymous Coward]

Morons hijacked pagan festivities, Happy Winter Solstice mother fucker. Will Odin deliver presents to you? Do you hear Sleipnir hoofs on your roof?
Is the Yule Log lit? are you celebrating Saturnalia with a feast?

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Kjella]

Wait, he only said, "The Bible never said that", which you then agreed with. For all you know, the commentor was a devout Catholic.

Meh, it does have an unbroken genealogy from Adam and Eve via Noah, Abraham etc. to Jacob who was born ~2168 years after Creation. He went to Egypt's land when he was 130 years old, the Exodus was 430 years later, 480 years after that they built the temple, 345 years after that was the exile. This is generally agreed to be year 586 BC by our calendar. Add that up and you get 6000-ish years, there are no "and then millions of years passed" gaps.

But like everything about the Bible that doesn't make sense it's just interpretation. The whole creation story is just an euphemism for big bang and evolution, there was no literal garden, apple or snake. The mental gymnastics people make to keep their faith in that book is amazing. I don't mean God in an abstract sense, but the particular God as described in the Bible. The guy who made a woman of a rib bone. That threw us out of Paradise because we wanted knowledge. Knocked us down because Babel built too big a tower. Wiped out entire cities like Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone. Drowned the whole world except Noah's ask in a flood. Asked Isaac to sacrifice his son as a proof of loyalty. And then sent his son down so he could forgive us.

It's Stockholm syndrome, plain and simple.

The"fall" and the Christian religion

[Camel Pilot]

All of Christian theology hangs on the fall of Eve and Adam and the world with it. Without this literal event nothing about New Testament theology makes any sense. That is why Creationism is very important. Jesus believed in the actual literal Genesis story and built his theology upon it. I personally don't understand how a Christian cannot believe in the literal Adam and Eve story and have a coherent belief .

(Disclaimer I don't believe it but I understand why they fight)

Re: The"fall" and the Christian religion

[Brockmire]

Everything in the Bible is literal until shown to be false and then it becomes a symbol and not meant literally. I went to a Catholic high school and was told Genesis was just a symbol and nobody believed it was literal. I said, that doesn't sound right, I've seen lots of references that they really believe this to the exact words. I looked up a stat, and in something like in 1950 USA, over 55% of Catholics still believed Genesis was factual, not a symbol. This dropped over the next decades, but they were still peddling this shit in the 20th century with nuns often quoting Genesis as they beat or abused you. Somewhere between ages 5-8, I can recall being in church thinking, "this is more made up than the fairy tales I read going to bed". It still surprises me smart people buy this shit, knowing it's not true, my only way to rationalize it is by assuming they were brainwashed as a child and it's engraved in their brains. In school, when playing that game where you whisper in an ear and pass the secret around until it gets to the end and nowhere resembles the input? Yeah, try that over hundreds of years by people where literacy was less than 4% and most likely were never there. And you're going to take the literal word by someone trying to hype something that they have an interest in? Nope, too much bullshit.

Re: The"fall" and the Christian religion

[Camel Pilot]

I went to Catholic school and Sunday School in the early 70's... I can confirm I was taught the literal Genisis story.

Re:Dating by Radioactive half-lives proves nothing

[Camel Pilot]

If you read the paper that is what makes these rock special is that they haven't metamorphosed.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Ol Olsoc]

Your post makes me aware that it is starting to look a lot like Christmas.

I like Christmas. I wonder if fundamentalists get pissed off that a lot of athiests really love Christmas? It actually looks like spring here though.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[crunchygranola]

Christ has revoked all previous Jewish laws, and left only one: Love one another.

Jewish books have no place in Christianity.

Odd for a man who was an observant Jew, spend his entire life as an observant Jew, and died as one. In fact one of his most famous acts, which likely contributed to his trial and death was making a disruptive commotion about corruption of orthodox Jewish religious practice in the Temple during Passover.

When did he revoke "all previous Jewish laws"?

... and one produced methane

[NikeHerc]

This variant developed into politicians.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[bigdavex]

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
-Matthew 5:17

Re: One for those species who could not adapt

[Brockmire]

It's fucking hot. I whine and melt above 30*C. Some fuckers live in places hotter than that for for more than just a few days a summer for some dumb fucking reason.

Re: One for those species who could not adapt

[Brockmire]

None of what you said made any sense, so I'll continue to ignore your nonsense, mmmkay?

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Brockmire]

As an atheist, I love Christmas. Vacation, food, drinking and presents. I'm suspicious of people who don't like Christmas. Fuck those people, they're defective.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Brockmire]

You should let the Pope know, it seems the Catholic Church has been doing it wrong.

Re: There real story here is

[Brockmire]

-1? I legit lol.

Re: Confused

[Brockmire]

Your post is "more stupid."

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[cold fjord]

In summary you are not able to successfully identify the relevant issues, potential implications, and what drawbacks might be attached to them. . . .

I suppose we can start with the basics. This is bad. The government was bad. The police were bad. The perpetrators were very, very bad.

The things linked to here are bad too. The government was bad. The police were bad. The perpetrators were very, very bad.

This is a pattern you will be seeing more of. Hopefully you survive any instance of it you are exposed to. (You might need someone's help.)

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[cold fjord]

...when it was a-ok to just bash someone's head in because he has the wrong imaginary friend.

"Antifa" ?

The point being that "Antifa" advocates beating "Nazis" but basically defines nearly everyone as a "Nazi" because Punch Nazis!!!!!

The label "Antifa" used by the current violent Left should be understood ironically.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Ol Olsoc]

As an atheist, I love Christmas. Vacation, food, drinking and presents. I'm suspicious of people who don't like Christmas. Fuck those people, they're defective.

Booyeah! Visiting with family and friends, and a lot of my relatives are winemakers. Some really old traditions, like drinking shots of Kümmel, and my Aunt's kickass beef stuffing, And now that I'm retired I can eat poppyseed rolls again.

Re:One for those species who could not adapt

[Paul Fernhout]

While it is hard to wrap our minds around as creatures of our seemingly orderly cosmos, if there truly is nothing at all, then there are no laws at all (e.g. no conservation of matter and energy, no cause and effect), and so there is nothing to prevent anything from suddenly popping into existence (along with whatever new laws of physics).

Re:Confused

[mark-t]

I don't think we are in a position to speak about the probability of either. In all of human history, we have a sample-size set of exactly one instance of a planet that has evolved detectable life... making presumptions about its plausibility or implausibility is simply not possible until we can at least find a second planet to correlate with.

As for the likelihood of God, it is no more or less implausible than the Simulation Theory.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[spitzak]

What really is insane is this stupid complaints about "Happy Holidays". The reason people say that is not because they are devil-worshipping atheist SJWs. They say it because there are TWO holidays! And I'm not talking about Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, I am talking about WASP holidays called "Christmas" and "New Years". White rich right-wing good Americans take the whole week off and thus their friends may not see them until after BOTH holidays, so what the fuck are they supposed to say?

The attempt to secularize Christmas was the term "XMas". Remember that? Probably not if you are younger than 40. It failed. The "war on Christmas" is over and Christmas won. But the crazy religious right will not get over it and keep pushing this nonsense.

Happy Holidays!
   

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Opportunist]

Huh? Since when is religion as valid as science?

I mean, outside of Texas.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Opportunist]

The values you cite are not religious values. Religious laws concerning not lying/stealing/killing only apply to others from the same religious group. I hope I needn't field examples where god himself told his chosen people that it's more than ok to kill, pillage and go on a rampage among the "other peoples" that they conquered, usually in the name of the lord or even with his aid.

So please, don't gimme that "Christian values of not lying/stealing/murdering". Like every religion, these "values" were meant to ensure that WE can cooperate to bash THEM. Not to find a sensible way to coexist with others who think differently. If you read the book closely, you'll notice that "thinking differently" is often a good enough reason to kill that person altogether.

And yes, the same applies to a lot of other religions, but that doesn't make it any better. It only makes these religions just as despicable.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Opportunist]

I don't. Not because or despite being an atheist, more because I'm a bitter Scrooge. Buying gifts for people you don't see all year (and when you see them you get reminded WHY you avoided them all year over), pushing and shoving in overheated stores (while you're wearing the big jackets because it's freezing outside, pretty much ensuring that you sweat inside and catch a cold as soon as you're back out), trying to snatch that last unit of some favorite toy for one of the spoiled brats one of your relatives pumps out every fucking year and fighting over that toy with someone who is just as desperate as you are, then having to move from one relative to the next, each and every single one of them stuffing you with the same crappy Christmas cookies you started to hate by the end of November already, nearly as much as "Last Christmas". Fuck it, George Michaels died last year but that song still gets played, why not the other way 'round?

I honestly admire the patience and longanimity of salespeople that they can stomach hearing that fucking song every 10 or 15 minutes!

No. Sorry. I can't enjoy Christmas. I enjoy the few days after when I finally am back at home, because that's the moment when it's the longest until that horror starts all over again.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Opportunist]

Could we just be thankful for 3 days off and not waste them on some superstitious nonsense? Just once?

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Opportunist]

Fine, I'll not wish anyone anything. Next one to wish me Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas or whatever else will get a heartfelt "Yeah, fuck you, too!"

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[sabbede]

Interestingly, there's a Jewish tradition that God was planning to allow Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree the next day, but they were naughty and ate early.

Personally, I see the story as a metaphor for ascending to sentience. Adam was an animal that spoke, walking around naming things for God, but not self-aware. The "garden" was blissful ignorance, and their punishment was knowledge of themselves; like, "I have to work every day?", and, "OH MY GOD GIVING BIRTH HURTS!!!"

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[sabbede]

The text wasn't generally taken literally for most of its history. The modern idea of reading it as literal fact was a 19th century invention, but it wasn't the first time that was popular. It seems almost cyclical.

The problem comes from the Jewish style of writing. Part historical fact (though generally filtered through generations of oral history), part moral education, part explanatory and part religious metaphor. Soddom and Gemorrah, for example, related the memory of two cities being destroyed by fire, explained the presence of unusual salt formations, reminded people not to disobey God, and reinforced the rules of hospitality (Lot was saved because he was a good host, the rest were not). The miracle of "Feeding the Multitude" may not ever have been intended to portray Jesus as being able to create bread and fish out of thin air, but how he was able to nourish their souls with his teaching.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Ol Olsoc]

I've actually never had that happen to me. They give me strange looks, certainly, but no stranger than my neighbour who occasionally sends me videos of this or that person "proving" intelligent design because he thinks that being an atheist is an irrational decision.

To be honest, I'm not sure how to respond to someone who goes ballistic for *any* greeting. Raised eyebrows? I can handle that. Religious propaganda/literature? Sure, I'll just throw it away anyway. Proselytizing? I'm not gonna argue, just get away if I can.

But anger? What the hell do you do there? Get angry back? That doesn't help - now there's *two* angry people.

I've had a few get pissed. My reaction is laughing at them. I suspect someone may take a second amendment solution on me some day.

Then Someone could truly say "He literally died laughing"

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Ol Olsoc]

And you think that would mean that it looks any different than the Middle East does today? You have the same shit going on there, one group claiming to have the moral higher ground so they can suppress the rest, and the rest fighting back. Why does anyone think this would be different in any way if we tried the same shit here?

Because their god is the right god. And it would be the same outcome. As a society based on one religion gained power, eventually there would be religion based warfare right here. Ideology and religion does not stay still. It's either waxing or waning. As it waxes, there is a demand to become more pure, to become less and less tolerant of other religions. And there you have it - an American version of the middle east, with agry gods who demand blood and death.

Re:Dating by Radioactive half-lives proves nothing

[slashrio]

Against!

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Brockmire]

I hear ya. All what you said rings true. If you had kids, it would be different. When my nephews stopped getting up at 7am and we could get up at 10am for the Christmas morning unwrapping, things got better. With Black Friday and Christmas shopping happening mostly online, the store part is mostly gone, too. Fuck Christmas songs. *hand motioning suicide* You just need a Christmas beej to get your spirit in the mood. And a Christmas bonus would probably go down well with you, too.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[Brockmire]

How come no one else reads this as butthurt diva? Design a being with free will, with brains designed to operate a certain way, and then throw a hissy fit the first moment they don't fucking listen? Where's the common sense? It's like kicking out your 2 year old baby for not doing as told. Anyway, it's all stupid, retarded shit that I have no idea it conned so many gullible people into believing the dumbest shit written.

Re:One for those species who could not adapt

[tehcyder]

0 + 0 = 0, that's a mathematical certainty.

-100+100 = 0 is a mathematical certainty too.

Re: don't be silly the bible says

[tehcyder]

Your post makes me aware that it is starting to look a lot like Christmas.

His post is making me aware that some people have started on the Christmas Spirits (like vodka) early. Lucky bastard.