Life's a beach

reply to post by Pimander

Yes I could give my answer to any of those.

Right; let’s have ’em.

I’m curious, too.

Life's a beach...
...and then you surf...

Akushla

it's cool bro, I'm an expert in dinosaur rodeo. I don't have to probe it, of course, I'm just so badass with my triceratops-roping skills that I don't have to answer to you.

Thaaaaat said... he's technically correct that this single find, taken on its own, really isn't proof of anything beyyond the fact that these organisms died some 3.4 billion years ago. for all we know htye could be a biological dead end.

Luckily, fossils are just icing on the cake of evolutionary theory. So hey, whatever.

Originally posted by Atzil321
Lifeforms 3.4 BILLION YEARS OLD have been found in Australia, making them the oldest
known life ever discovered, and adding to the already overwhelming evidence in favour of
darwinian evolution.

The fossilised remains of the oldest known lifeforms on Earth have been discovered in samples of rock collected near a remote watering hole in the middle of the Australian Outback.
Scientists said that the microscopic fossils belonged to primitive bacteria that lived more than 3.4 billion years ago, when the Earth had emerged from a period when it was probably too hostile for life. The primitive microbes used sulphur instead of oxygen to generate energy from food and, the scientists said, they may be the closest that science will ever get to the mysterious origin of life on Earth.
The fossils were found in rocks that were originally formed in shallow seas near a coastline and suggest that beaches may have been the key habitat where the Earth's first lifeforms thrived, said David Wacey, of the University of Western Australia.

There were none of these babies on the ark thats for sure www.independent.co.uk...

Well considering these lifeforms are still on earth today, it's safe to say this discovery does nothing for the theory of evolution. They obviously didn't evolve.

If we see fully formed organisms today that are the exact same as organisms, said to be the earliest ancestors of life, then what evidence are you using to show evolution in this thread? You seen the words 3 billion years and said, " Aha, here is the proof that will validate to other people why I believe my worldview.". Well, this isn't proof. This is just another thread for you and the same old posters to come into and try to hold each others worldview up. If this is your proof, then I'll pass. I'm not that gullible.

Originally posted by addygrace

Well considering these lifeforms are still on earth today, it's safe to say this discovery does nothing for the theory of evolution. They obviously didn't evolve.


Did you blindly say that cause you thought it to be true, or where you mislead somewhere? We can't deduce from fossils how different these primitive bacteria where from the modern bacteria we see now, and it doesn't say anywhere that they're the same.

Originally posted by addygrace
If we see fully formed organisms today that are the exact same as organisms, said to be the earliest ancestors of life, then what evidence are you using to show evolution in this thread? You seen the words 3 billion years and said, " Aha, here is the proof that will validate to other people why I believe my worldview.". Well, this isn't proof. This is just another thread for you and the same old posters to come into and try to hold each others worldview up. If this is your proof, then I'll pass. I'm not that gullible.

No, I think you're intentionally overlooking the implications of this. This discovery adds additional proof to the understanding that life on earth started simple, and somehow over time *hence evolution* became the complex forms we've seen today.

Not all creatures evolve drastically over long periods of time. Bacteria still exist, because they work and survive. They still have evolved though, they're not 'the exact same', they're just still bacteria.

How many theories besides evolution, also agree with the findings that simple life came first, and complexity gradually popped up? None that I can think of. It's absolutely absurd to think that a deity would create like that.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

 

How many theories besides evolution, also agree with the findings that simple life came first, and complexity gradually popped up? None that I can think of. It's absolutely absurd to think that a deity would create like that.

Why is it absurd for a deity to create bacteria, that is being purported to be the first life forms? I don't see the connection you're making.

There is nothing gradual to the fossil record. They actually say there was an explosion, in the cambrian period. Where most of the animals we see today, suddenly appeared.

By the way the article states itself, the bacteria they found is still around today.

The main problen I have with your claim is; Finding fossils of bacteria, that's still around today, somehow negates a deity. I knew that's what your slant was from the beginning. If your atheist, that's ok. But please stop pretending something found in rocks shows the absurdity of God.

Originally posted by addygrace
There is nothing gradual to the fossil record. They actually say there was an explosion, in the cambrian period. Where most of the animals we see today, suddenly appeared.

By the way the article states itself, the bacteria they found is still around today.

The main problen I have with your claim is; Finding fossils of bacteria, that's still around today, somehow negates a deity. I knew that's what your slant was from the beginning. If your atheist, that's ok. But please stop pretending something found in rocks shows the absurdity of God.

If you could show human fossils 3.4 billion years old, that would mute my claim. But the fact is, the simple things showed up long before the complex things, which were still long before the highly complex things.

It makes a deity sound absurd, because the deity would of had to for some reason want to wait until the right times to make new organisms, and continually kill them off and recreate newer ones until we eventually have the modern day ones. And that still wouldn't explain the things we see evolving right before our eyes. I'm not pretending, especially if your referring to a biblical god, since he has a creation story that is contradicting by mounds of evidence, this just being more of it.

I don't have much time now, so I'm gonna give you some links.

Cambrian Explosion:
Wikipedia
Yahoo

It's nothing like what you portray it as, it's neither immediate emergence of creatures, nor are they the same as today(though, they were on the way to their modern forms). It was also not the first time any creatures emerged either. Just a couple million years where species spread out into different forms and niches.

And, the fossil record does indeed show a gradual growth in complexity.
Link

~
I'd recommend you research topics before making claims, it'll help you make arguments(though there isn't one here). I'd also say your beliefs aren't objective and critical(not trying to insult), because seeing the amount of false claims and misunderstandings already, I'm sure there's many more in other areas that affect your belief system. If you spent some time studying, and could defend your beliefs using real evidence and reasoning, I'd find that many times more respectable than shooting down and twisted things that don't agree with your beliefs without understanding them in the first place.