I wonder if we'll ever do paleontological digs at the ocean surface. There's still an enormous cache of fossils on land, but that still relies on early life being fossilized and eventually carried above the ocean by tectonic shift.

This is definitely an awesome find, though. Just look at that imprint!

This is more or less old news, but still very cool. These little buggers were about 1-1.5" long. Oldest animal fossils are about 760 million years old:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2097609/Fossils-Namibia-worlds-oldest-animal-life--oldest-ancestor-sponge-760-million-years-ago.html

SF, the problem is that the true ocean floor turns over fairly rapidly. Most is less that 120 million years old and pretty much nothing moer than 180 million. Sometimes a little bit gets thrown up on the continents, but most marine fossils come from shallow seas over continental crust.

Jock I was thinking the same thing. Sea floors are recycled relatively quickly.

Looks a lot like a mantis shrimp. Creepy little guys when you happen upon them...

Pedestrian -

Just what I was thinking. 500 million years later we still have creatures looking just like that thing.

I bet it would have been really good on a taco.

Wow this can't be true...the "born agains" tell us the earth isn't that old. pfft, science.

Isn't the world only 6000 years old, though?

Cool discovery but..... I hope they don't start up with the mindless speculation that, more often than not, follows these discoveries.

So....did these things ride on top of the Triceratops with the humans, or walked alongside them?

I just want to get this straight.

Aahh, I wondered what ever happened to my 1st wife. Must admit, she's gotten better looking with age.

but..... I hope they don't start up with the mindless speculation that, more often than not, follows these discoveries.

That "mindless speculation" is the theorizing part of the scientific process, in order to come up with possible solutions that can be tested for viability. It's kind of important.

SF, the problem is that the true ocean floor turns over fairly rapidly. Most is less that 120 million years old and pretty much nothing moer than 180 million.

So that's a "no" then. Ah, well. I never had the qualifications for "undersea evolutionary biologist" anyway.

Beats the he!! out of a "potato Jesus", huh? I'm glad Max above provided scale for the photo, though -- my mind was reeling with 6 ft tall 'B' movie horrors...

Bandit, I hate to be the bearer of bad news...but I think it's time to let it go.

This has to blow the minds of the young earthers!

How is this possible since the earth is only 6000 years old? There must be some mistake. Maybe they meant this fossil was 5200 years old, you know, from before the world wide flood for which there is no geological or archeological evidence whatsoever.

I thought, too, that the world was suppose to be, like, only 6,000 years old. Isn't that in the Republican Party platform or something?

All I want to know is if there are enough for a BBQ?

or

Is that thing a baby Zoidberg?

Yes, yes, it's a cool discovery.....
Still, when's dinner? ***wooo wooo wooo wooo wooo*** (claws clacking)

lets hear the bible thumpers thow the book at this one

I can't read real good, but where in the Bible does it say the earth is only 6,000 years old?

meanwhile, the national debt is nearing $17 trillion

this creature was a bottom feeder ..kinda like the present day TeaParty

could you yawn for us max?

or did you just mean 500 million old...

maddog

example, please? "Mindless" speculation of mindless criticism?

so it is fine for at least 10 trolls to slam the religious folks, the republicans, Sarah Palin etc...but the one guy who makes an off color comment about democrats gets his comment collapsed. Free Speech is alive and well as long as you agree with it I guess.

2 Joan Rivers stories on the same day.

@StunnedByTheAge - there's a stark difference between people disagreeing with speech and having been arrested/executed for having expressed it.

I can't read real good, but where in the Bible does it say the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Your reading comprehension is just fine: it doesn't, and that's the point.

The bible doesn't exactly say the Earth is 6000 years old, it's just a declaration by a Bishop who interpreted it so by calculating the dates and ages of the players in the bible - all the lineages going back to Adam. Sure it doesn't say that the earth is 6000 years old, but it sort of solidifies the estimation by having that information there. So, you can't pretend that the bible 'doesn't say.' If you do, you're just playing dumb.

Biblical literalists are idiotic. People who believe in God after deciding the bible isn't literal are wishful thinkers.

Nothing wrong with wishing, but as they say, taking a crap in your hand is more productive than wishing in it.

Stunned

the one guy who makes an off color comment about democrats gets his comment collapsed.

Free Speech is alive and well as long as you agree with it I guess.

Both the commenter and the collapses exercised their Newsvine rights. None of this falls under the purview of the First Amendment, though.

Anthony Edwards

You just made the same mistake of those you criticize, yes there are those that misinterpret the bible then believe they know ALL the truths when they don't have a clue, many poor biblical teachers out there that still preach the world is flat, its no different. It comes down to interpretation, the bible in no way states or even hints the earth is only 6000 years old; nor does it say to count generation to figure it out, because you'd be wrong. Your hardline stance also rejects the idea that the bible DOES give indication the earth is much older, and so far most Christians actually believe the world is as old as scientists say, why wouldn't they? The bible does not conflict with what science tells us, only what some scientists theorize, but then, even scientists still can't agree with all of it either.

Enough scientists agree about enough things about this theory that the logical conclusion is that evolution is a fact.

Well, the Bible certainly doesn't give the impression that the earth was sitting around for 4.5 billion years before humans came along. It also strongly implies that humans and animals are still as God created them, when we know for a fact that they evolved. Of course this is only a problem for strict literalists.

i don't believe in "god" but i will say this; if there was a being smart enough to create humans and animals i would have to believe that the evolutionary process was factored in to the final products in order to assure continued survival. so, in short, humans and animals ARE in fact as they always have been, maleable and genetically conducive to beneficial physical changes over time. so if the "bible" does in fact say humans and animals are the same as always, then it is correct in this assumption as is evidenced by the continued existence of man and animal in an ever changing habitat. we remain the same by changing as evolving is what allows us to be. evolution is not something that living things have to do, it is something that living things simply do as a part of living.

Religion is the opposite of science.

Science knowledge begins with a question, continues with observation and gathering of facts, and progresses to tentative, testable answers followed by answers (theories) that are supported by substantial evidence and a consensus of experts.

Religious "knowledge" is philosophical in nature and is based on thought, not observations or facts. Once consensus is reached within the religious community that consensus is expected to be accepted on "faith" and any evidence contrary to the consensus is rejected. The religious community is even expected to accept on faith that the Bible is the "word of God" despite the complete lack of evidence that God had anything to do with the Book.

Why would a person, any person, want to be the kind of person who believes only what they are told they must believe? If they believe that God gave them a brain and the ability to reason, and they surely do believe that He did, why would they think that God would not want them to use that brain?

don97524

Religious "knowledge" is philosophical in nature and is based on thought, not observations or facts.

DEAD WRONG. Real religion is based on history, human nature and moral standard, all these are tangible and absolute. Your opinion is moot.

Ken

You forgot parables, myths and stories made up to scare people into desired behavior.

Religion = myths

Science deals with the physical world we live in, not the supernatural in which religion resides.

Religion is the opposite of science.

That's not true. That would entail that they are connected in some way, like hot and cold. Religion and Science are completely skew of each other.

Maybe I didn't explain my point of view very well.

The theory of evolution (like other scientific theories) resulted from inquiry about the nature of life on Earth. Darwin and many other scientists observed fossils and life forms, studied the anatomy of a large variety of plant and animals, proposed hypotheses, continued to observe and test their ideas and finally arrived at the theory of evolution. That theory has survived and improved over the past 150 years since Darwin published his work, incorporating such ideas as genetics and DNA, neither of which were known at the time the theory was first introduced. During the past 150 years countless scientists have attempted to disprove the theory of evolution, because that is how science works. Every hypothesis and every theory is subject to peer review and the goal is to DISPROVE the science, not, as many detractors believe, to blindly approve of new theories as if they are a "religion."

Creationism, the religious view, was probably also based on a question, something like, "Where did the Earth and living things come from?" The problem is that the "wise man" who answered the question did not have the good sense to say, "I don't know." Instead he made up a story about a God who created the Earth and all living things and either he or someone else decided that the story was "the word of God." There were no observations or facts necessary to support this creationism idea. None were necessary because God need not act within the boundaries of the laws of nature. In fact, any evidence against creationism was ignored because belief requires only faith and faith is proven in those difficult circumstances where evidence is stacked against the beliefs of the Church.

Ken Trout

No one is implying that everything in the Bible is wrong. Much of the history found in the Bible is verifiable; some is clearly not. Clearly, it is impossible for a rational, thinking person to accept everything in the Bible as absolute truth. Similarly, one would be a fool to reject everything in the Bible as false. We are left with the task of deciding which parts of the Bible we should believe and science is one of the ways we can do that.

The fact that the Bible cannot be relied upon as a source of scientific information should not prevent its use (selectively) as a source of moral standards.

Religion and science use completely different methodologies, so they are only appropriate for completely different questions. Religion is for the questions that science can't answer. Evolution is not one of those.

I wasn't disagreeing with you don9, except for the "opposite" part.

The flood story explains many things, like why fish and clam fossils are found in the mountains. Not unlike how Thor explains thunder and lightning.

Plate tectonics and subduction zones are hard for some people to understand today.

Real religion is based on history, human nature and moral standard, all these are tangible and absolute.

Um, no, actually, none of those things are "tangible". To be tangible means being capable of being touched; material. And I also find your idea that human nature and morals are absolute. Heck, even history, which is nothing but records, is surprisingly fluid and fuzzy, since humans developed it and humans are prone to mistakes and bias.

And let's not forget that religion also has its roots in spiritualism and creation stories. It's nice that, as a religious person, you focus on the most useful aspects of it, but a great many people do not.

Tony

I'm sorry I was not clear. I meant opposite in the sense that science starts from a question and seeks the answer while religion starts with the answer and seeks to defend that answer, even to the extent that they believe the answer should not be questioned (as in "Doubting Thomas").

Great posts Don. Of course Tony and SF always provide excellent post.

Sorry I forgot to mention Jock as well is an excellent poster.

Thanks, Greg

Chip, me and you both. Love this stuff.

you want "waycool ?" then look up the Coso artifact.. you will laugh,, scientist stated that inside a geode (40 million year old geode) that aliens misplaced an electrical item.. they we all excited untill someone found out that what was inside this 40 million year old geode was a 1920 SPARK PLUG !!!!!! lol... by the way. the geode was solid and untampered.. it was a scientist who found it..

Jamie, that would make it your relative too...

Faith, you're right, it is a spark plug but, it wasn't discovered by a scientist but a couple of amateur mineral hunters. Supposedly, a geologist dated it to about 500,000 years old but, there is no record of the geologist, no name, no nothing. Also, it is not a geode. What it is, is simple metal oxidation and it's only about 90 years old now (about 40 years when found in 1961).

@faith: Scientists had nothing to do with that. It was a bunch of amateurs that found it.

Truth will never stop a faith believer

Faith, by definition, is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution as a natural biological process, but only faith-driven cultists can ignore the evidence for evolution and cling tightly onto the primitive myths of an ancient band of lice-ridden nomads.

Coso was not discovered or examined by scientists. They claimed a "trained geologist" examined it, but nobody was ever identified and nothing was published. It is not even sure the artifact was a geode, although the collectors claimed it was. It's a fun story, but about as real as the Easter Bunny.

faith believer

The coso artifact haw been debunked. How desperate must you be to attempt to discredit real science with junk science?

http://archyfantasies.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/the-10-most-not-so-puzzling-ancient-artifacts-the-coso-artifact/

It's obvious from your screen name that you do not need facts to support your belief system. Why not just leave the facts to the people who actually value facts as part of rational thinking?

I checked another site and these animals appear to be approximately 3 centimeters long. They are of particular interest because of the debate among scientists over the nature of head evolution of early arthropods.

So it was over an inch long. Not bad for a dinosaur-bug's great-grandparent.

I'll bet those tendrils coming out of its face(?) came in handy. Some got nerve endings and eventually became atennae, others ended up being used for locomotion and eventually shifted further down the body, probably.

SF,

if you are an accountant why are you pretending to be a biologist?

Because I like science?

Is there something wrong with my thinking?

Red are you taking your med? If SF was pretending to be a biologist why would he go by SF accountant? LOL.

You are OK, SF, keep talking. I am not an official scientist either, and I like science too.

This is really neat, but where did they find it?

What does Sarah Palin know, about anything??? Anyway, the Earth is definitely more than 6,000 yrs old, how old, only God knows, any scientist can speculate but that thing looks like a thousand legged worm, centipede whatever,

with some legs missing. 500 million though???

Sailcat-2064141 @ #3.1

They didn't get any back then... head evolution is a fairly recent development.

This is really neat, but where did they find it?

Somewhere in China if I read the article correctly.

Somewhere in China if I read the article correctly.

Key words, "read the article".

jackson ask your god he should be able to tell you.

If a historical record falls in the woods, and there's no one around to read it, is it really history?

Well, I'd assume that there are plenty of rocks whose initial formation pre-dates life on Earth, given that life couldn't have existed before volcanic activity subsided enough for microorganisms to survive (and even then, it probably didn't appear until long after that).

So I'd guess that there are potentially fossils stretching back to the earliest life forms that had hard body components capable of resisting decay.

We've never found rocks older than 4 billion years, and even those are very rare. Life may have started shortly after that if not before, but the timing is still controversial. At any rate it was all bacteria until about 2 billion years ago.

ok.........they estimate this is 500 million years old. that's 1.5 billion after your "it was all bacteria until about 2 billion years ago" so things had 1.5 billion years to get to where they were when this creature died, give or take a year or two.

That's a good point. There are many prehistoric creatures that we will probably never know about, simply because their traces have been destroyed in the eons that have passed or because they didn't live in habitats that were conductive to fossilization to begin with. The known fossil record is just a sampling of life that has existed. If we were to somehow travel back in time to when these animal existed, we would likely be greeted by unfamiliar creatures we could never even imagine.

1.5 billion years to make it to early arthropod sounds about right.

That's a hell of a evolutionary climb from random chemicals to inch-long insectoid. At the point that organisms have complex organ structures, body ex/endoskeletons, and actual nervous systems, the heaviest lifting is done, in evolutionary terms.

To Jock59801 --

The oldest rocks found so far date back 4.65 billion years and are located in the Canadian Shield. In addition, these rocks are metamorphic, meaning that their properties have been altered (heat & pressure) since their original formation. Therefore, these rocks are more than likley older than 4.65 billion years.

Geologically speaking, the oldest known fossils are of pre-cambrian age, 3.5 billion years old, of bacteria and algae. However, in the Ediacaran Period (late Proterozoic) age 635-542 million years, macroscopic soft-bodied fossils have been found in locations around the world, of most fame in Austrailia, and also Newfoundland and northern Russia.

I assume all the macroscopic Australian fossils boasted enlarged venom sacs, enormous fangs, and deadly claws?

I mean, with the prevalence of horrifying killer animals in Australia, they had to have gotten their start early in the game.

Oldest surviving rocks of any size are 3.85 billion years old; there are zircons that are 4.4 billion years and show that Earth already had significant resources of water then (much of which would be lost in future asteroid impact, with comets bringing more water to Earth).

It's not the age of the rocks as much as the nature of early life that puts limits; very small and fragile lifeforms that would have rarely fossilized.

@SF accountant

Ha-ha-ha ... actually, they are some of the "weirdest" fossils that have been unearthed. There is not a lot of consensus amongst scientists as to what they are. Up for debate, they appear to be anything from algae, lichens, giant protozoans, cnidarians, worms, a separate kingdom not related to anything living today, or soft-bodied relatives of today's arthropods.

Somehow reading about millions of years and billions of years of our little dirt ball [earth we call it] floating around in a vast universe makes me feel very lonely . . .

It is a neat looking little critter though.

Carbon dating will always be subjective, even though it has a half life, established by scientific analysis, we truly don't know where it started in its decay relative to its existence confounded by unknown environmental factors in that time span till we discovered it. Have scientists subjected carbon to every environmental variable that could ever be encountered?

That is a question that modern science can never truly answer.

We can try to figure things out, theoretically and 'scientifically' but will be stymied endlessly till we die and discover the real truth.

How do you know modern science can never answer it? These techniques are being perfected all the time, and with the advance of particle physics we may end up with all new techniques that are far more accurate. And even if carbon dating isn't perfect, it's hardly "subjective".

But hey, if you think you're going to learn anything when you die, you go ahead and look forward to that.

Carbon dating is based on the decay of the isotopes of carbon. Chemically they are identical and taken up indiscriminately. It is only after the organism dies and the composition of the fossil is now static that the difference in the decay is now measured. It would be a pretty weird environment for one isotope to be favored over the other.

Phil

This fossil is too old for carbon dating so the age is determined by using other isotopes and by other fossils in the same rock strata.

You are wrong in saying that carbon dating is "subjective". Carbon dating is absolutely based on physical laws and is therefore "objective."

God put that fossil there 3000 years ago then gave us the technology to determine it's half a billion years old. I mean really, how is that not clear?

The sad part about this is that a few of my friends truly believe this is nothing but the work of Satan. These people can actually carry on an intelligent conversation until you get on this subject then it just goes south very quickly. There's no middle ground with most of them -- either you take the Bible literally (at which point you're condsidered "saved") or you're the next anti-Christ.

The Jewish fairy tale book does not put a number on the age of the earth. The white Europeans put a number on the age of the earth . . . and at the time it was considered "science".

In the distant future, the intelligence of that time will probably look back at some of the "science" that you believe and mock you.

Just because you are able to accept the findings of modern "science" easier or quicker than others, it actually doesn't make you more intelligent . . . and that is a scientific fact. So, don't be so proud in your boasting just because you read about others discoveries and believe, there are those who just happen to be meeker in what they believe. Acceptance of Creation vs evolution or any other scientific finding is not a contest of intelligence but a matter of subjective will . . . And like intelligence, you are born with what you get. The truly intelligent person has enough confidence and self discipline not to ridicule others.

Just remember Einstein, you didn't discover or invent or create anything. Scientist find errors in their science every day . . . sometimes it takes them years to see where they made a mistake. Don't be so proud of yourself. It really is unbecoming.

or you're the next anti-Christ.

Beware of BBQ invitations. They may turn into a auto-da-fé

The Bible or book of fairy tales as you call it never says the earth is 6000 years old nor does it even attempt to give the age of the earth.

What do Republicans do when they see stories like this? What does Rush Limbaugh, their science guy say?

Just because you are able to accept the findings of modern "science" easier or quicker than others, it actually doesn't make you more intelligent

You know, I find people who mock the religious and treat them with contempt just as annoying as those who relentlessly push their religion as an alternative to science, but I fully disagree that the former is less intelligent.

If you're unable or unwilling to understand scientific principles, and reject them in favor of the teachings of the Bible and their interpretations handily explained to you by the established churches, then yes, I would say you are demonstrably less intelligent than the jerks who believe scientific evidence and laugh at church congregations as gatherings of cavemen.

That doesn't mean that atheists are inherently smarter than religious people, but a refusal to understand or entertain physically observable facts and records that form a scientific conclusion, in favor of "faith" is definitely and indicator of poor intelligence.

Scientist find errors in their science every day . . . sometimes it takes them years to see where they made a mistake.

From Isaak Asimov quotes:

“The young specialist in English Lit, ... lectured me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern 'knowledge' is that it is wrong.

... My answer to him was, "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."”

What do Republicans do when they see stories like this? What does Rush Limbaugh, their science guy say?

He pops another Oxycontin

no,kevin - some idiot (a pair of them actually) added up the years in "the book of dogmatic assertions" and declared it "indisputable" (of course, thinking people have told the "young earthers" to go piss up a rope.

Shorter Andy: What evolution?? Y'know I don't have a problem with christianity vs science and I never have. I'm sure Jesus could have discussed quantum physics at length but that was not the knowledge level of the audience he was dealing with. Isn't it a little insulting to God to reject science and assume that everything is just magic? There's an intricate mechanism on this planet that is self creating and self sustaining, if stupid people would just stay out of the way. I have to believe it is somewhat unique or we would have seen alot more alien life forms that we have so far...which is none. So when religious fundies start freaking out over evolution I have to laugh. It's an amazing tool and I'm sure he's still using it.

So when religious fundies start freaking out over evolution I have to laugh. It's an amazing tool and I'm sure he's still using it.

This. If there is a God, there's absolutely no reason why He couldn't have established the beginning of life and then allowed it to evolve into complex life forms according to the natural laws (or grand plan) that He set into motion. Stubborn belief in God over science is one thing, but stubborn belief in a book (the Bible, obviously) over science is quite another.

Uh-oh, now you guys went and done it. Jesus is going to be really mad at you. He's gonna send you plagues of locusts and burning hail and cause your cable to go out and then he's gonna send you to hell forever where you'll be in real bad pain. Now don't forget - he loves you.

SFAccountant -

I've read many of your posts and appreciate your openness to other views.

Amazing how many serious scientists come to see the hand of God in their studies.

Well, 'something' overcame 'nothing' and the universe is here spinning, expanding, evolving. Whatever the 'it' was which got this all going is a force to be acknowledged. Some call it god. I just think of it as a positive force. A 'tendency forward.'

It is my wish that the 'it' is a personal thing, but I very much doubt that. I also wish that heaven were a true thing. Wouldn't it be nice to learn answers for our persistent human questions about the origins of the universe and of life? If there is a personal supreme being, maybe that being would then be able to answer these questions. Unfortunately, I highly doubt this will be the case. Sort of makes me sad really that upon death it's simply lights out and all the living we've done simply ceases. I can understand the comfort derived from being a believer in a warm loving god. Just can't quite get there for myself. Kudos to those of you who can.

Jonathan F - The Bible or book of fairy tales as you call it never says the earth is 6000 years old nor does it even attempt to give the age of the earth.

It does however say that bats are birds.

It started when they found out the truth about Santa.

Oh My Science!

MSpielman

It started when they found out the truth about Santa.

Don't you say nuthin' bad 'bout Santa, or else you ain't gettin' nuthin' for Christmas!

I'm sure Noah had a pair of these critters on his ark. Or maybe not, since they were sea creatures. But the flood was all rainwater, so Noah had to carry around all the saltwater species. Or maybe he forgot about them, like he did the dinosaurs.

On second thought, I'll go with the simpler explanation: they're 500 million years old.

Santa is real.

;-)

6000. Some dumbass priest / monk w/e tried to date the age of the earth by going back counting the generations from Adam to Jesus or something and came up with 6000. He should have gone back to flogging himself for all the discord he caused over it. The bible actually never states how old the earth is.

2013 = 5774 in the Jewish calendar.

The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, this does not necessarily mean that the universe has existed for only 5700 years as we understand years. Many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the first six "days" of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day").

Recorded history doesn't necessarily match geological history.

I believe centipedes qualify as ancestors to these types of creatures.

I believe centipedes qualify as ancestors to these types of creatures.

Centipedes would be descendents of these creatures, not ancestors.

The body structure of centipedes is far more complex than that thing.

Must be one hell of a vitamin regimen or something

wow you are way off, the eath is 6000 years old not 4000.

Good grief gang...give up the 6.000 year old thing. You're only about the 50th person who said it.

Carbon dateing doesn't work back that far. What's being measured is the radioactive elements breaking down, the half life-thing. Radioactive carbon breaks down relativly fast in comparison to other radioactive substances. That's why Chernobel is going to be "hot" for centuries.

My uncle is 78 years old and has a date Friday evening. That seems more like carbon dating to me..

They read the date on the tombstone, died 4,997,987 bc.

From what I understand, the fossil is "dated" by the strata of rock in which it is found and by relationship with other fossils known as index fossils (brief answer). Carbon dating is not a viable means of reckoning age for these fossils.

The measurement of the equilibrium of decay of organic matter is best effective to approximately 50,000 years, but can be extended to nearly 100,000 years.

i think it works pretty much like this: carbon dating looks at the proportions of the isotopes of carbon14 and carbon12 which unstable radiocarbon14 naturally decays to. when something is living it takes in carbon in a steady stream and a certain portion is the isotope (varying neutron counts in the atomic nucleus) radiocarbon14. when an organism dies, it stops taking in any carbon and the radiocarbon14 begins to steadilly decay into normal14 and 12. those proportions of isotopes can be measured and that can tell you how long it has been since the organism died. cool huh?

They cut it in half and counted the rings.

who said it was 6000 yrs old to begin with?

one was an English idiot - there was another one - they just add up the years and called it good. lately people are looking and saying "FUUUUCK IT!"

Why, whatever do you mean? They were all just expressing their confusion at how this thing could be 500 million years old, when the Earth itself is only several thousand years old. Certainly a conundrum that would give reason for consternation.

Yeah, but we put the fun in fundamentalism. Otherwise they'd just be damentalists

damn-entalists

Oh, lets forget billions of years old and go for trillions, quadrillions, or even octillions of years old, who really knows? Lets go for pure fantasy and go for decillions or more years old, it is all relative based upon what part of the universe you are in.

well, sorry, the conclusion of 14.8 billion or so estimate has pretty sound reasons for it's selection. whimsy has nothing to do with it. ask feynman, hubble, wilson et. al.

Phil must be a product of the Texas state education science curriculum.

Because Freedom of Speech (Speaking), Freedom of Religion (Thought), and Freedom of The Press (Writing) only apply to the Left. If you don't agree with their talking points, jokes and opinions you are slammed, at best, forcibly quieted at worse. Just look at what they tried and still try with Talk Radio. They have tried numerous times to get it legislated that radio stations MUST provide equal time for Left leaning shows even if the advertising budget (and listeners) won't support them.

But yes, a very cool fossil find. I wish more stories were printed about subjects like this. I will remember not to click the 'comments' button next time. Although I guess others would try to get the comment sections closed off.

Get it folks? I can CHOOSE what stories I read and comment on, can you? or do you just have an over whelming desire to bring politics into everything, and if they don't agree with your opinion do you just turn the channel or try to shut them down?

Guess you didn't stick around long enough for the Lord to give you a clue.

The fact is that we will never know how long God's day is, until we die. Science has proven that time is completely irrelevant, we only think on a 'time line' because we are forced physically to live within a boundary. The limits we are forced to live in are merely for our benefit, to learn and understand that there are ultimate boundaries, regardless of our form of existence.

Phil

I understand each word, but they way they are arranged escapes me.

God must belong to one kick a$$ union. He has only worked one week in his entire life!

How odd that so many people are here posting their amusement in the Christian faith. I guess you all assume we just believe in some "genie in the sky" and don't have any evidence. I am saddened that you haven't come across more people to correct you in this false thinking, but let it be clear, we are not confused. Thousands of Biblical prophecies have come true, and are continuously coming true, if you want to be blind to that, that's your choice. I have received spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit, not to mention a continuous outpouring of his love and presence since I dedicated my life to God, and those are more than enough evidence for me. Heaven and hell are real places and I tell you with unflinching confidence that you WILL go to one of these places, not based upon your own judgment and discretion, but upon God's.

Thousands of Biblical prophecies have come true, and are continuously coming true,

The same can be said of Nostradamus.

Crafty bugger, that Satan...

I thought these were fossils of demons that come to the surface during earthquakes? /s