What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
58 Comments
- Diefree, on 07/14/2009, -1/+31Why bury this? It's an interesting read for the timeline life evolved.
- mentallyinhell, on 07/15/2009, -2/+27You've already started.
- Sieker, on 07/16/2009, -0/+15That 3.83B for the beginning of life is someday going to be pushed back.
It's based on carbon dating on 12c and 13c (carbon isotopes) that are in the right pattern and ratio for us to think a carbon-based life form left that pattern in the rocks. they found this rocks on Akilia Island in Greenland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Early_con ...
If photosynthesis was the first form of metabolism, than it won't get pushed back to much farther. We'll just keep finding rocks with these characteristics that are a little older than the last.
If it was chemosynthesis however, And life started in geothermal vents on the ocean floor where we haven't done much study, who knows how far back it goes? since the age of the earth is only 4.54B years old, it makes you wonder just how easy it is for life to get under way given optimal starting conditions...
Sorry for the pedantic nature of the post, I'm just hoping some *actual* biologist will see this and start participating so that we can learn something, instead of having to watch the science vs. religion flame war unfold for the umpteenth time. - FrameWraith, on 07/16/2009, -2/+13Because religion is a tool used for oppression to control the masses and keep the power. Science is the continued search for truth.
- a7r3ides, on 07/16/2009, -2/+13you're in the wrong place buddy.
- DeaderThanElvis, on 07/16/2009, -3/+11This is what I like about scientific theories; scientists claim them to be 'the most probable explanations' based on the limited knowledge they have gathered. Once new discoveries are made, the old theories are reaffirmed, modified or supplanted depending upon what could be inferred from them. Scientists are not afraid to accept that they were wrong once.
Which brings me to my point: Why can't we have our religious teachings in the same way? Why don't we accept that we were wrong once and modify our theories once new evidences are brought to light? Why don't we come up with improved versions of the Bible, the Qur'An or the Bhagvad Gita every year, using our newly obtained information?
Accepting that mistakes were made and trying our best to learn from them seems a much better way to move forward than to cling on to dated sayings claiming them to be pure and holy and hence un-tamperable. - snarkastic, on 07/16/2009, -1/+9Where did all the poofs come from? I thought "God" hated homosexuality.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/16/2009, -0/+7Because the purpose of most religions is to offer absolute questions to unanswerable questions. Changing your answer admits you were once wrong. Admitting you were once wrong admits that you may still be wrong. The problem with answering unanswerable questions is that your answer will never by based on evidence or falsifiable information. If you then open up those answers to debate then the fact that you have no better idea than anyone else will become obvious. Denying the possibility of being wrong offers the keen advantage of never having to explain exactly what makes you right. That's pretty important when your answers aren't based on anything immediately observable or which may be recreated.
Science doesn't typically suffer from such problems, but it can at times. When people lack the ability to observe what is correct they have often formed competing camps of thought who rigidly insist on their own correctness. Eventually, someone usually figures out a way of proving things one way or the other. That's impossible in religion, so the two camps just keeping arguing forever. - Cartman86, on 07/16/2009, -2/+9Yep he is right. Everything you need to know is in their. How and who to have sex with, what not to eat, who it's okay to kill, how to treat slaves among a variety of things you can pick and choose to accept or not. It's the perfect book!!!
- insanebrain, on 07/16/2009, -4/+11flying spaghetti monster tells us it's only 10 minutes old.
- JoeHague, on 07/16/2009, -3/+9Nice timeline but I don't see how Mr babby man was formed/
- Sieker, on 07/16/2009, -0/+6Most diggers are ok with the existence of power users, just not when they steal articles. had you posted a link to the same article posted earlier by someone else, We the great unwashed would have all agreed with you.
As it stands, I'm happy to see this article. - bratterscain, on 07/16/2009, -0/+6Yep, it even tells you when an appropriate moment to get mad and flip over tables is.
- masterstghm, on 07/16/2009, -2/+8Maybe Human Evolution is a misleading name for something else since he used it as a proper noun.
- bonk2k, on 07/16/2009, -2/+8Too bad your timely comment added nothing to the discussion, therefore rendering it worthless.
- Sieker, on 07/16/2009, -0/+415 minutes, heretic.
- LeviTheSmith, on 07/16/2009, -3/+7http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&fea ...
- zenerdiode, on 07/16/2009, -8/+12That's B.S. Everybody knows the timeline of the evolution of life happened like this...
3,991 BC + 5 days = Poof, birds and fish came into existence
3,991 BC + 6 days = Poof, man evolved from earth (aka dirt)
3,991 BC + 6 days + a few minutes later = Poof, woman evolved from man's rib
3,991 BC + a short time later = Man + Jesus tamed dinosaurs & rode them to fight the boards of education all across Eden - illinest, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3this is so fantastic.
I've been trying to find good timelines as I get older and my interest in history goes up.
This one is a great 'big picture' view of the evolution of life. I think plants are adequately represented here, unless it's dreadfully important to find the split between elms and oaks. Maybe a little more information on the origin of plant life is in order.
I also would love to see pictures or artists renderings attached to the article.
If the timeline could be attached to a presentation of continent movement with rising and falling sea levels and maybe some sort of representation of the life itself that would be pretty killer.
Also would like to see a timeline of early human history, going back to the last split which is what, 180 million years ago?
and BY THE WAY..
I think it's time to just start ignoring the creationists. There's no sense in arguing with them. Treat them like the insignificant yokels they are. - bratterscain, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3Because then you're using tried and tested experience, observation, and logic which is something religion doesn't claim to support, for the most part. And when you start doing that, you might as well call your religion science.
- Cartman86, on 07/16/2009, -3/+6It's funny because we sort of do. It's just people refuse to accept that we do. We don't keep slaves, we don't stone people to death for adultry, we don't require rape victims to marry the man who raped them, and a ton of other things we don't do anymore. It's just the whole concept of a religion like Christianity, Islam etc (or even religions in general) is that they can't be wrong. They are the word of god after all. They are dealing in absolute morals. Even though people don't really follow them in the modern world. It just makes you wonder why they still believe in them.
- LadyA, on 07/16/2009, -2/+5There is no such thing as God. /sweepingstatement
- insanebrain, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4>"Man + Jesus tamed dinosaurs & rode them to fight the boards of education all across Eden"
did they win ? - bonk2k, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2I'm a troll, and as of now I have +4 diggs, while you have -6. This is the digg you know and love.
- anonymous1986, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2You will lose your left testicle if you keep posting
- ithejosh, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2bury this kid. ^^ way to start it up
- Gravedigger3, on 07/16/2009, -3/+5Maybe not in the deep south.
(Just kidding all you non-retarded southern people) - flawedprefect, on 07/16/2009, -3/+5Yes, it's even got some wonderful recipes for flat bread, and great advice on getting guests drunk when all you have is water. I especially like the nifty how-to guide on feeding 40,000 of your mates. Who knew all you needed were two fish and five loaves? Genius. *chuckles*
- Cartman86, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3Oh god you already did! You could've waited to see who would've started first! Would it be the "This list is wrong as the earth is 6,000 year sold" person OR the "LOL I can't believe anyone doesn't believe this!" guy. Instead we have to settle on the guy who stays in the middle and laughs at everyone else.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/16/2009, -2/+4The time line begins at the present and works its way backwards. They aren't sure where it "ends" in history.
- flawedprefect, on 07/16/2009, -3/+4Easy - because if you try and improve on the "inspired word of God" then you get schisms between those who will argue that changing the text is disagreeing with God's plan, and sensible people like yourself.
- masterstghm, on 07/22/2009, -0/+1I was buried because I want to hear about plants?!
- nepidae, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1hitler
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1Actually, it's time to ignore the kiddie trolls. It's a rare thing you actually find someone seriously trying to talk creationism. It's the twits who don't know science, have tried to make it into a religion, and of course feel obliged to attack other religions.
- falconear, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1Ahh, so THAT'S why the creationist museum has the dinosaur with a ***** SADDLE on its' back. Makes perfect sense now...
- manicleek, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2You ***** *****.
A creationist comment would have been better because it would have started discussion on the subject. Or at the very least provided us with something to laugh at!
You're just a dick - 4AntiStupid, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1Interesting point, but is there any potential evidence of chemosynthesis that we could still detect now?
- stevealford, on 07/16/2009, -3/+3That person wasn't a creationist, nor did he mock creationists. He commented that the article itself was flamebait. I saw it before I commented.
- gamerbambi, on 07/16/2009, -1/+1Well that's you but these powers have stolen my articles/Pics submissions, steal them, post it in their blogs, and submit them to Digg
- tHeSiD, on 07/16/2009, -1/+1blasphemy!
- rxbudian, on 07/16/2009, -3/+2That same thought came into my mind... and they're next to each other too...
- stevealford, on 07/16/2009, -3/+2Thanks a lot, mister comment policeman... but I have a question:
What exactly did YOUR comment add to the discussion? Yeah, you wasted even more space by talking about how I wasted space. You're a moron and a hypocrit.
I was making an observation. Since when has digg ever required that you add something to the discussion for a comment to have value? I guess all the ascii and memes that I have seen on almost every article were productive, huh? - 4AntiStupid, on 07/16/2009, -1/+0Hey, a whole set of idiots for the block list.
- kaosethema, on 07/18/2009, -2/+1as it stands, i bury all power users no matter what i thought of the article.
go ahead, dig me down sheep!! - ithejosh, on 07/16/2009, -6/+3Agreed ^^
Anyways I thought this was really interesting but they used a lot of scientific terms that made it hard to understand for me. Also would have been cool if there were pictures relating to each subject to see how the animals//plants changed. I want to see what the fish looked like that evolved into insects.
I liked even though only understood like half of it :/ - SarcasticGenius, on 07/16/2009, -8/+5Just bury every comment above me so we can start over.
- JoeHague, on 07/16/2009, -4/+1Check the second comment( set to oldest first).
- anonymous1986, on 07/16/2009, -5/+1Well in ur family......
- masterstghm, on 07/16/2009, -8/+3Can they make one that focuses on plants some time? I feel as though plants are neglected and deserve more attention. I'd li
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is