3.35-billion-year-old evidence of life on Earth

Well here's one for evolution................

From Canada.com:
A Canadian-led team of scientists has discovered what they say is the oldest indisputable evidence of life on Earth -- the fossilized trackways of slithering microbes in a 3.35-billion-year-old rock from Australia.

Full Article Here

So big funding going their way and links to "Life on Mars" research being considered.

The fossil itself has been dated using a laser-plasma mass spectrometer and originated from South Africa.

So when did it all start?

I think it's great that they were able to accurately date fossilized microbe trails at 3.35 billion years old. I have no idea is $20,000 is a good amount for a grant in this kind of topic of research, but my immediate feeling is that it isn't much. Research instruments with long names are usually expensive to operate.

The most interesting piece of information here is that life had begun very very early here on Earth, and that's exciting to me.

This is a very exciting news article! Yaay for evolution! Incredible to think how old life on Earth really is.

They obviously had funding before to do the research to get them to this point.

The interesting thing here I think is that the Canadian Space Agency have shown an interest for their investigations of Mars and I'm sure more funding will come once things progress and more organizations jump on the band wagon.

Looking into the past to look into the future. This is so..........obvious and logical.

I, for one, wish them all the best. Keep on diggin'

A truly fantastic find. Evolution is a beautiful journey and if we can trace it back to where it all began... that'll be wondrous. It's exciting to hear that life could have started on our primitive Earth. Now we need to get to Europa and Mars with better tools for actual research.

Just found a wonderful site with loads of interesting info on "the origins of life".


In the beginning..... at Resa.net

Amazing stuff

That is funny, I would sure like to ask the Canadian a few things about his "Indisputable" evidence. See I dispute it now, which means it is not indisputable.

They date the fossils by the layer, they date the layer by the fossils, its all circular and made up. They then use different bad sciences to try to prove their made up layer theory. They throw out all the readings that don't fit into their timeline theory. They also make up the content of minerals in those fossils, they go by the rate of decay. So in this manner of dating you find out how much of some mineral or such is in the fossil, you then find the rate of decay of that element. Then you subtract the Live animals KNOWN ELEMENT LEVEL subtract the current level and use the rate of decay information to get your age. So i only have one question...

When that fossil was alive what was it's level of that element they tested?

Oh they don't know and they "GUESS" the levels and subtract the current level from the "GUESSED" level. So I say that the original level of the creature was way lower than they say. It is just my "GUESS" but my guess is as good as theres. I say its less than 6000 years old and most probably died in the Flood of Noahs day and would be around 4500 years old.

Unless one of you have a live creature that is still in his original time and earth conditions to tell his level of the element for a fact, IT IS ALL GUESSING...

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
I say its less than 6000 years old and most probably died in the Flood of Noahs day and would be around 4500 years old.

Proof?



*awaits quote from genesis*

[edit on 4-7-2007 by DarkSide]

Darkside...PROVE to me a laser plasma thing or carbon dating method are true and correct. By who's standard. Is it true just because science says so? Please...science is JUST like religion/faith...some believe it some do not. 3.35 BILLION years old...sorry but that to me is completly nuts. And now to say they can use technology to see BEFORE the big bang...I'm just not buying it....

I find it quite amusing that some of the creationist here are asking for proof.

I still don't understand why there has to be such a seperation between evolution and creation. It's not so black and white.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by tyranny22]

evolution vs creation....that is a whole new thing (since evolution is BS..lol)....My thoughts are believe what ever you want...thats your choice...I just can't wrap my head around something being that old, and that we can test it and know its age because of a formula some guy made up.

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
evolution vs creation....that is a whole new thing (since evolution is BS..lol)....

oh the ad hom attack without any basis.....

My thoughts are believe what ever you want...thats your choice...

reality trumps belief

I just can't wrap my head around something being that old, and that we can test it and know its age because of a formula some guy made up.

it's not a formula that some guy "just made up"
it's a formula based around the consistent decay of certain elements. it's a constant in nature.

things are that old, if they weren't we wouldn't be able to see the stars in the sky because the light wouldn't have had enough time to travel here.

We do not have ALL the answers.

To either believe that we know God's Will, or the true history and development of our planet is a ridiculous, pompous dangerous assumption.

Information, theories and beliefs will be changing as long as we exist here.

Originally posted by Horrificus
We do not have ALL the answers.

true

To either believe that we know God's Will, or the true history and development of our planet is a ridiculous, pompous dangerous assumption.

but saying something about god and saying something because you have science are two different things. darwinian natural selection is backed by evidence... the whole god thing isn't

Information, theories and beliefs will be changing as long as we exist here.

no, information won't change, our base of information will grow. pi will always be pi, c will always be c. many theories won't change because we have them quite spot on, like cell theory, it's scientific fact that the human body is made up of cells. atomic theory won't really change either, stuff is made of atoms.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

That is funny, I would sure like to ask the Canadian a few things about his "Indisputable" evidence. See I dispute it now, which means it is not indisputable.

They date the fossils by the layer, they date the layer by the fossils, its all circular and made up. They then use different bad sciences to try to prove their made up layer theory. They throw out all the readings that don't fit into their timeline theory. They also make up the content of minerals in those fossils, they go by the rate of decay. So in this manner of dating you find out how much of some mineral or such is in the fossil, you then find the rate of decay of that element. Then you subtract the Live animals KNOWN ELEMENT LEVEL subtract the current level and use the rate of decay information to get your age. So i only have one question...

When that fossil was alive what was it's level of that element they tested?

Oh they don't know and they "GUESS" the levels and subtract the current level from the "GUESSED" level. So I say that the original level of the creature was way lower than they say. It is just my "GUESS" but my guess is as good as theres. I say its less than 6000 years old and most probably died in the Flood of Noahs day and would be around 4500 years old.

Unless one of you have a live creature that is still in his original time and earth conditions to tell his level of the element for a fact, IT IS ALL GUESSING...

Take a look at en.wikipedia.org... This happened more than 6000 years ago.

I'm sorry but I don't see any proof of evolution here. Microbes are just another form of life wether they lived 3 billion years ago or 5 years ago. Microbes are still here and will always be here.

I believe in the hybridization theory and since this does not prove evolution I will continue to believe in it.

Nice story though if it is true and someone can actually measure how old something is even though elements like weather and climates changed over the billions of billions of years and could change the results of the tests.

Na.. I can't get on board with that. Those date results can't be accurate.

Originally posted by Stari
I'm sorry but I don't see any proof of evolution here. Microbes are just another form of life wether they lived 3 billion years ago or 5 years ago. Microbes are still here and will always be here.

but the microbes around today evolve underneath the microscope, right before our eyes.

I believe in the hybridization theory and since this does not prove evolution I will continue to believe in it.

alright, you can believe a bunk theory all you want. it doesn't make it true.

Nice story though if it is true and someone can actually measure how old something is even though elements like weather and climates changed over the billions of billions of years and could change the results of the tests.

no, they couldn't, that's not the way atomic decay works.

Na.. I can't get on board with that. Those date results can't be accurate.

it's so sad when people can't understand and then agree with FACTS. atomic decay is absolute science.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

They date the fossils by the layer, they date the layer by the fossils, its all circular and made up.

No.

It's true that in some cases where similar fossils occur in different places, one concludes that the rock strata is of a similar age in both cases.

But with older rocks like this we date using a variety of methods, primarily radiometric dating.

Now, you may doubt the accuracy of radiometric dating, but just saying you doubt it does not mean it's wrong. You need to actually demonstrate why it is wrong. And for that, you must first study the methodology and the science behind it. Till then, most of us will accept the opinion of those who have studied the methodology and science behind it

I knew right when I read this thread title what the arguement tone would be.

Whether it is cabon dating or laser-plasma mass spectrometer dating the find, the method is questionable and disputable.

Knowing that there was life on this planet so long ago truly means nothing to man today in my opinion. I don't believe is creation or evolution because both were thought of by man himself.

Where we came from will always remain a complete mystery to mankind. Religion followers are to me brainwashed and evolution believers are unbrainwashed religion followers looking for something to believe in.

I have raised my children to believe in themselves and to be honest to society. They are not christened or baptised, rituals I don't believe in.

Hi folks, glad to see others still interested in this.....

Unfortunately, the web site hosting the original article only has a 30 day archive and only show the very briefest details of this story, so I have done some searching and found Wikipedia to be a brief source of info on this discovery, the scientists involved and has some interesting links including just how samples like this are retrieved. (Quite amazing really!)

University of Ontariio Article

CBC News Article

So....I think you may be right about the date not being right but...it's still very, very, very old

Personally I think the people spending money should be more concerned with research on how much time we've got rather than how much time we've had!

[edit on 7/7/2007 by nerbot]