JohnW
Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 16 2011,13:06) | | Quote (REC @ Mar. 16 2011,14:34) | How the deuce does PaV go from life being 3500 million years old to 2000 million years old*?
Even if we assumed the test really rules out biological origins of this fossil, and that all fossils of this type are mineral, and not biological on origin, what about the stromatolites of nearly the same age?
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/24/9548.abstract
OR some really definitive ones of 2800 million years old:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/full/ngeo107.html
*Based one mini-press release, not finding carbon in fossils. Why do these types think scientific consensus is found in the press release?
And why don't they Google "oldest fossil" before posting? Seriously. |
Not to mention, in the category of No Free Lunch, what would be good from their perspective: 1.5 by less time for evolution would also be bad from their perspective: 1.5 by more time for abiogenesis.
I would think they would prefer even older fossils, to stress (shorten) the amount of time between earth's cooling and the appearance of life. I think they didn't think this through before declaring a win for the home team. |
I don't think this was thought about any more deeply than "old age bad, young age good".
Going from 3.5 billion to 2 billion is nearly half-way to 4004 BC.
--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
