This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Oldest fossils on Earth found in Australia, provides proof of life on planet 3.4 billion years ago
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gnomerdon
EARTH'S oldest fossils have been discovered in Australia, providing proof of life on the planet an amazing 3.4 billion years ago.
The microscopic bacteria are believed to have lived at a time when the planet was a hot and hostile place with very little oxygen. The discovery strengthens the case for life on Mars.
The bacteria were found between grains of sand and quartz near the oldest beach known on Earth, in some of the oldest rocks that can be found anywhere, in a remote part of Western Australia's Pilbara called Strelley Pool.
"We have good solid evidence for life over 3.4 billion years ago," Professor Martin Brasier from Oxford University said.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/oldest-fossils-on-earth-found-in-australia-provides-proof-of-life-on-planet-34-billion-years-ago/story-e6freuy9-1226119187133
Okay, this is so insane to me. What tools do you use to determine how old "things" are? How ACCURATE are they? I know this earth isn't 10 million years old, but 3.4 billion? Where the hell can they calculate that? I bet these scientists have a troll face on or something.
According to wikipedia, it says "The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."
Since the community here are alot more intelligent than most others on the web, what do you think? How old is this planet? Do you trust these devices?
From a biblical standpoint, the earth is only 6 thousand years old?
Let’s do a calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first 5 days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the birth from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.
Adam was created on Day 6, so there were 5 days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So, 5 days of creation, plus 4,000 years, plus another 2000 years after Jesus died on the cross.
That is exactly 6005.77 (august) years that the earth has been around.
HOW OLD IS THIS EARTH?
Post by
Monday
4.54 billion years old.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
You can't prove that the Earth exists to measure its age in the first place.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
You can't prove that the Earth exists to measure its age in the first place.
I bet time doesn't exist either
Post by
Squishalot
You can't prove that the Earth exists to measure its age in the first place.
I bet time doesn't exist either
No, that's just what I like to try to convince myself of ;)
Post by
Monday
You can't prove that the Earth exists to measure its age in the first place.
Now isn't than an existential quandry.
Post by
281850
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Atik
You can't prove that the Earth exists to measure its age in the first place.
So if I start tapping on the ground... what am I tapping on?
Nihlism doesn't make much sense to me...
Post by
Skreeran
4.54 billion years old.
^
And I thought I was old.^
As for the nihilistic quandary,
it's really only a philosophical curiosity, not a powerful argument
.
Post by
Squishalot
So if I start tapping on the ground... what am I tapping on?
Nihlism doesn't make much sense to me...
You think you're tapping on the ground. Suppose your human form works the way that we understand it to. What you're thinking is a combination of neuron firings that you associate with tapping on the ground. You don't need to actually tap on the ground to feel as if you are. That's why amputees can still feel 'phantom' pain - the perception is not in one's mind, not in what has actually occurred at the limb.
As for the nihilistic quandary,
it's really only a philosophical curiosity, not a powerful argument
.
Not quite. It's irrelevant to the 'real world', but it's a firm argument - there is no feasible way to prove that the Earth is what we perceive it to be, so why waste our time thinking about such things? Does it really matter whether we think that it's 4.4 or 4.5 billion years old? It has no material impact on our understanding of consequential issues.
Post by
Atik
You think you're tapping on the ground. Suppose your human form works the way that we understand it to. What you're thinking is a combination of neuron firings that you associate with tapping on the ground. You don't need to actually tap on the ground to feel as if you are. That's why amputees can still feel 'phantom' pain - the perception is not in one's mind, not in what has actually occurred at the limb.
So why is it that if I imagine tapping on the ground, I don't feel it on my knuckles?
Post by
Squishalot
You think you're tapping on the ground. Suppose your human form works the way that we understand it to. What you're thinking is a combination of neuron firings that you associate with tapping on the ground. You don't need to actually tap on the ground to feel as if you are. That's why amputees can still feel 'phantom' pain - the perception is not in one's mind, not in what has actually occurred at the limb.
So why is it that if I imagine tapping on the ground, I don't feel it on my knuckles?
Because you can't consciously control your neurons.
Post by
Atik
There is no way to prove we even exsist at all or this conversation is actually happening. So why bother discussing it?
Post by
Jubilee
There is no way to prove we even exsist at all or this conversation is actually happening. So why bother discussing it?
Why bother not discussing it!
Post by
Squishalot
Because it has consequence.
Post by
Atik
There is no way to prove we even exsist at all or this conversation is actually happening. So why bother discussing it?
Why bother not discussing it!
Because it saves the effort exerted in dicussing something that isn't real.
For example, if I wanted to dicuss techniques of defending a city against godzilla with you... how would you respond?
Post by
Jubilee
Because it saves the effort exerted in dicussing something that isn't real.
For example, if I wanted to dicuss techniques of defending a city against godzilla with you... how would you respond?
I would tell you to go get King Kong of course!
Post by
Atik
Because it saves the effort exerted in dicussing something that isn't real.
For example, if I wanted to dicuss techniques of defending a city against godzilla with you... how would you respond?
I would tell you to go get King Kong of course!
And I would tell you the only reason King Kong TIED with Godzilla was because he was given lightning fists.
Post by
Jubilee
Look we're discussing it! Communication involves the transfer of ideas, not the transfer of realities. There no reason not to talk about any idea!
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.