Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Jimmy Walker
2259 Followers
Jimmy Walker
2259 Followers
draganescu pavlovich
1158 Followers
draganescu pavlovich
1158 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
gustomuchoAug 17, 2010
Yeah right, everyone know the Earth is 6000 years old
/s
mentallyinhellAug 18, 2010
And the dinosaurs just didn't fit on the ark.
stoperrorAug 18, 2010
That seems disturbingly logical.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dollar0dot02Aug 18, 2010
Absolutely wrong. According to Mayan calendar the world is only 5124 years and a couple of days old.
atarioAug 18, 2010
WHAT! UNDER SIX THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAND!?
orangetideAug 18, 2010
And for the Jews it is year 5770 since creation. It seems a lot of cultures have roughly the same estimate for the beginning of time. Which works out to be a little bit before the Bronze age, when civilization really started taking shape.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
i love when people honestly believe the 6000 year old age...
you only have to say one thing to make them feel extremely stupid...
if it was 6000 years old thousands of years ago, how is it still 6000 years old?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kibblesnbittsAug 18, 2010
None of what you said made any sense. Can I have some weed?
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
yea i know... stupid me, posting at night when the bulk of the religious right come on digg
seriouzbidnezzAug 18, 2010
*whoosh*
rogersausagesAug 18, 2010
I don't know anybody making the argument that the earth was 6000 years old 1000's of years ago.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
"I don't know anybody making the argument that the earth was 6000 years old 1000's of years ago"
people quote an estimated age that was made thousands of years ago (6000 years)... yet, thousands of years later (not one single person on earth can tell you the exact amount of years since the 6000 year old prediction was made) people still use the same exact number, even though thousands of years have passed...
i see there are a bunch of mindless religious people on this thread
bigviAug 18, 2010
I always get a range of 4000-6000 years old. They need to get their lies straight.
goweigusAug 18, 2010
a year was worth about 850,000 times more back then
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
And people wore bananas on their belts, but called them "yellow fatty beans" which was of the style back then.
shadicAug 18, 2010
Here comes Roy, right outta Grant's Ear!
Oh summoning circle/squares.. Those were the days.
particleman420Aug 18, 2010
i think it was a typo in the article.
they meant 650 years, not 650million
wastedpandaAug 18, 2010
That's one f**king unfortunate typo.
particleman420Aug 18, 2010
i dont get why i'm buried.
was my oh so subtle sarcasm too much for you all?
mb3nn377Aug 18, 2010
what does /s mean?
sirblaAug 18, 2010
sarcasm
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
*side dish
ieatskunkAug 18, 2010
it means "stupid comment that has nothing to do with the article, let's just bash religion because it is guaranteed to be dugg up."
trigonometronAug 18, 2010
When it comes to the age of the earth, religion bashes itself.
ieatskunkAug 18, 2010
Some religious people say and do some stupid s**t, i grant you that. But blanket attacks on religion are popular on digg. Which is odd. Not that I expect everyone on digg to be religious, but it is odd that people go out of their way to attack it as if out of fear. Kind of like how homophobes go out of their way to attack gays and take personal offense to anything related to homosexuality.
dangodingoAug 18, 2010
I don't think many attacks on religion are out of fear. I personally agree with your comment on blanket attacks being popular, sometimes its cold and those blankets are so damn soft. /s
enaatuAug 18, 2010
*Sideshow
rogersausagesAug 18, 2010
Didn't take long for that cheap jab and unrelated comment to show up.
ntecAug 18, 2010
Nice one Gustomucho, that was my first thought when I saw this article... religion... hahahaha.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
hahah their unproven theory holds no water to our unproven theory!! fools!
go celebrate your sky daddy!
i can rest easy knowing i used to be a monkey!
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Edit (4m 53s...)
hahah their unproven theory holds no water to our unproven theory!! fools!
go celebrate your sky daddy!
i can rest easy knowing i used to be a monkey!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kahrahtayAug 18, 2010
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
I see what you did there.
afizzledbearAug 18, 2010
This story didn't even bring that up. Why post your comment if it doesn't even relate to the subject matter.
mxm111Aug 18, 2010
Was /s really necessary here on digg?
anothersoldierAug 18, 2010
I don't understand how these scientists find 'sponge' animals in fossils 650 million years old... how do they know it's just not a scratch and a couple of dots in the dirt like everything else?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
*runs into the room in a labcoat and punches you in the face before running away*
ebcreasonerAug 18, 2010
I would pay good money to see that.
drzmobieAug 18, 2010
SCIENCE!
cannabistAug 18, 2010
It's science. They don't pull this s**t out of their asses like a prophet would.
yedrellowAug 18, 2010
Certain formations are simply geologically impossible, which gives the first hints that it isn't simply a part of the rock. Secondly, the morphology of some of the fossils is often comparable or nearly identical to modern living equivalents, like stromatolites. Admittedly though, a lot of the time in geology and paleontology, it is simply unknown what the fossil really lived like. An example of this is the ediacaran fauna, which no one really has any idea what they were really like, despite the fossils of them being described thoroughly.
anothersoldierAug 18, 2010
I know I know, I'm not trying to be a jackass or a skeptic. I just genuinly don't understand, that's all. I can't fathom how any amount of research could help you determine that something on a chunk of rock is 650 million years old and belonged to this species of animal. I mean, 650 million years is a long ass time. All kinds of things can happen to that hunk of dirt or rock in that timeframe. How can you just simply look at it and do some carbon tests and reveal 650 millon years of history??
Im not saying its fake. Obviously they do it and have ways to do it. I'm just saying it's surreal to think about it.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
The first thing that you misunderstand is that you wouldn't use radiocarbon dating since the C14 isotope only allows for dating carbonaceous materials to ~60,000 years.
anothersoldierAug 18, 2010
oh WHO GIVES A s**t. I'm sick of people psycho f**king analyzing every detail. I was just trying to politley say "this s**t is f**king crazy". And don't pretend you don't f**king agree. Lets see you go into your backyard and pick up a piece of dirt and find a f**king sponge animal dating 470 quantrillion bazillion years old. I f**king dare you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jackhamer45Aug 18, 2010
He f**king dares you.
anothersoldierAug 18, 2010
I double dog dare you.
magibegAug 18, 2010
The molecules in your body were created by nuclear fusion inside stars billions of years ago. Another interesting science fact which i think is even more epic. We're made of star dust.
iceman21Aug 18, 2010
The fossil record is based on the depth at which you find the fossil, not sure how far down 650 million years are and it probably depends on how compact the layers are at that point, among other factors.
They picked out the fact there's a sponge there with a microscope i guess.
r0g3rAug 18, 2010
There are other methods of radiometric dating using isotopes with longer halflives than carbon 14.
The thing is, the various methods, radiometric dating, stratified layer depth etc. are all used to verify and calibrate each other. Over time, the stratified layers around the world have been identified and dated. So they can use one or more methods, but because of this cross referencing that's already been done, each method has a pretty well known error margin.
Something is never dated precisely, there is always a margin for error, which is included in the data when scientists publish.
Just a little clarification, hopefully helpful for Anothersoldier.
redmo0nAug 18, 2010
@Anothersoldier
The date is actually 650 million years not 470 quadrillion, just thought I would clear up that misunderstanding.
anothersoldierAug 18, 2010
I triple dog dare you.
youseinaviAug 18, 2010
f**king fossils, how do they work?
dangodingoAug 18, 2010
no quitsies
idugggAug 18, 2010
They use carbon to date it. See when a living thing absorbs carbon, part of it is radioactive. When the animal dies the carbon that is radioactive is not renewed anymore and its concentration diminishes following a very well known and predictable pattern.
It's like telling the hour of the murder taking the temperature, except that here heat is replaced by radioactive carbon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
beatle42Aug 18, 2010
Carbon dating is usually only good to ~60k years ago (though advances could push that a further back in time). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
idugggAug 20, 2010
Don't they use another similar technique then?
stellar09Aug 18, 2010
I can't live on this planet any longer
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
"I don't want to live on this planet anymore."
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
"This planet no longer suits me."
smith28Aug 18, 2010
"Suit you sir, suit you."
glassagateAug 18, 2010
"So long, and thanks for all the fish."
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
I thought we already found Larry King.
pokeypenguinAug 18, 2010
Wow, I was going to come make this comment.
liljimmynordinAug 18, 2010
Me too. f**k, I'm slow tonight. I just missed the Zach Galifianakis joke on the Joaquin Phoenix post.
deralteAug 18, 2010
wow, i wasn't
sjr09Aug 18, 2010
http://www.hiyoooo.com
allantronAug 18, 2010
Larry King, he looks like an owl.
harrypowersAug 18, 2010
I was thinking Abe Vigoda.
geosusAug 18, 2010
The chemistry of those dots and scrapes.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
There is a reply function you know.
sup3rsh3epAug 18, 2010
OH WTF THERE'S ANOTHER REPLY
sup3rsh3epAug 18, 2010
hah it'd be so funny if someone didn't know how to reply
StrutThatAssAug 18, 2010
Fake! That older than the Bible.
Scientists need to get their facts straight.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
You forgot the /s.
sup3rsh3epAug 18, 2010
dugg, because it really shouldn't require the /s
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Seriously? There are five people out there that need to see the /s?
Surely you can believe he's taking the piss here.
adrenokr0m3Aug 18, 2010
Don't call me shirley.
How exactly does one transcribe this sort of humor onto the internet? The issue is with the existence of a homonym, something almost impossible to replicate in text.
Humpf.
ieatskunkAug 18, 2010
Wow you are so clever.
frankoceanAug 18, 2010
Nowhere near the Bible does it says that earth is 6000 years old.
Really, the ignorance is getting annoying.
frankoceanAug 18, 2010
@Kirakun.
Your friends need to grab the Bible and actually read it.
afizzledbearAug 18, 2010
This story doesn't mention the Bible there is no need to bring it up.
crackinthebox10Aug 18, 2010
Did they find the fossil of a pineapple next to it?
glitch017Aug 18, 2010
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/25/orsonclappingu.gif
alpha19Aug 18, 2010
SPONGE BOB! SQUARE PANTS!
frequentflyerAug 18, 2010
WHOOOOOOOOO
joughAug 18, 2010
Absorbent and yellow and porous is he!
powderedtoastyAug 18, 2010
You guys are making me feel old :(
kinggorillaAug 18, 2010
Mom?
batwaffelAug 18, 2010
Didn't read the article, but was it a piranha?
Christopher Lloyd said it was last seen over 2 million years ago!!!
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
no only if we could get our own ancient history sorted out...
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Sponges benefits great bathroom cleanings makes already all people for!
khastAug 18, 2010
Syntaxgs you are not.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Known Guangzhou not in Syntaxgs.
iceman21Aug 18, 2010
f**k syntaxgs, and f**k merlin 9090, syntaxgs is a odd kind of celebrity digg user and you get buried for even asking who he is, which is retarded and merlin here is just a dumbass .
youngcebAug 18, 2010
may have seen a lot in that time, but I bet it has been very boring
jayskullsAug 18, 2010
WRONG this is the oldest life form on earth
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRllV59vQxXa_KPFpMSeWMznDQcQ0mDuNq3HEz8vhyTKuxwXMI&t=1&usg=__dYmKJmr5cXPFDX7AsErleEN6jbA=Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dollar0dot02Aug 18, 2010
As old as SpongeBob
andyb747Aug 18, 2010
"We hypothesize that the fossils are sponges because they are large (not bacteria), asymmetric (not any other animal group), and contain a network of one millimeter diameter tunnels inside that may have served as the 'water canal system' used by sponges to circulate water and food"
Sounds complicated. Why not just squeezing them?...or maybe wiping down a kitchen counter or two?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnfluxAug 18, 2010
A fossil does not contain any material from the original thing. The original sponge has long since been destroyed.
andyb747Aug 18, 2010
in that case...them are trick fossils.
hamishcduncanAug 18, 2010
How can they it's 650 million years old and not just 600 million years old?
yomoskaAug 18, 2010
cause when they it's 600 million years old you might 650 million years old and that problem
deralteAug 18, 2010
how do you?
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Accidentaly
barcelonakizAug 18, 2010
.....these comments suck
iwantawiiAug 18, 2010
Agreed. I was hoping some biology or maybe geology buffs would chime in and I'd learn a few things. Instead every comment is "but the bible says 6000yrs!! herp-uh-derp-uh-derp."
liltbrockieAug 18, 2010
the world can't be more old than a 60 degree light year can it?
specimen7Aug 18, 2010
The author seems to have forgotten about Stromatolites. The oldest life on earth dates back to 3.5 billion years ago.
maxxellAug 18, 2010
Stromatolites are formed by bacteria. This article is about 'animal' life.
omeganonAug 18, 2010
pffft... 650 million years? That's nothing. Try 3.43.Billion years old -- http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3194/evidence-of-earths-earliest-lifeComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Somethings not right here.
gregatron5000Aug 18, 2010
Pfft. Older than the internet.
angelbunnyAug 18, 2010
If they could dig up Antarctica they would probably find older.
ivanmarshAug 18, 2010
I assumed it meant still alive and was very curious as to how they made that determination.
orangetideAug 18, 2010
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
powderedtoastyAug 18, 2010
Someone found your mom?
(I'm insulting every single digg user, take that!)
glassagateAug 18, 2010
"Look out, Ned, IT'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US!"
idugggAug 20, 2010
Oh... well I can't bury myself but I would...
global76Jan 23, 2012
Very Interesting