Life is very ancient!

[Maccie]

Found this on this BBC News site. I thought it was really interesting, and thoroughly confounded any ideas of a young earth. And of course, this is how life began - as bacteria.





Scientists suggest between 60 to 70% of all bacteria live deep beneath the surface of the Earth, far from the Sun's life-giving rays.

Some of the new bacteria identified are about 16 million years old, surviving 400 metres below the sea bed.

This hostile habitat might be where life first evolved more than 3.8 billion years ago, researchers believe.

"There is evidence that life evolved in the deep sediments," co-author John Parkes, of Cardiff University, UK, told the BBC News website.

"There is clear evidence that life existed more than 3.8 billion years ago. Although, for there to be a big enough biomass for us to detect it in the rocks, it must have been evolving long before that."

But before that time, the surface of the Earth was a very hostile place, battered by space rocks and volcanic eruptions.

So, Dr Parkes thinks deep sediments may have been the kindest place for life to begin.

Read the rest of it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4291571.stm

 

[TwinCrier]

Your ancestors aren't germs, they are Adam and Eve.

 

[Maccie]

Just for the record, bacteria aren't "germs". They are bacteria, and we couldn't live without them. Neither, for that matter could Adam and Eve, if they were real.

 

[California Tim]

Some of the new bacteria identified are about 16 million years old, surviving 400 metres below the sea bed.

Have you considered how they arrived at this figure of "16 Million years old"? Do these bacteria have "growth rings"? Think about it. I 'll give you a hint: it is closely related to "400 meters".

 

[Maccie]

Have you considered how they arrived at this figure of "16 Million years old"? Do these bacteria have "growth rings"? Think about it. I 'll give you a hint: it is closely related to "400 meters".

If you had bothered to follow the link I gave, you would have found the following:

Evidence of life in ancient rock sediments was found some time ago but, until now, it was assumed that most of it was long dead.


In the past, scientists have stained bacterial cells so they stood out against the sediment background, but that method cannot differentiate between living and dead cells.

Dr Parkes and his team used a new technique that could identify living cells - and they were surprised to find about 30% of the cells in deep sediment samples are in fact alive.

"We took sample sediments and we stained just the living components in each cell, so we were able to count the living cells," said Dr Parkes. "It reinforces the idea that this large bacterial biosphere is in fact living rather than fossil bacteria." Some of the cells are imbedded in sediments that are many millions of years old, which means they must be ancient, too.

Think about it. I 'll give you a hint: it is closely related to "400 meters".

And don't be so patronising

 

[California Tim]

You did not answer the question. How did the figure "16 million years old" become the de facto answer?

 

[Maccie]

Some of the cells are imbedded in sediments that are many millions of years old, which means they must be ancient, too.

Did you read the link??

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050221/full/050221-11.html

This is the original article the BBC new item was taken from. You could, of course, have found this yourself, as it was a link in the BBC item. You probably are not aware that "Nature" is the foremost Scientific journal in the World. Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but don't ask me to defend it. I don't have to. Write to them yourself.

 

[Wakeup2god]

Dr Parkes must be from the same university as the famous Welsh scientist 'Ivor Notion'. the whole age dating thing is purely a man made notion that has been proven to be unreliable.

40 metres below the sea bed. Was that the lowest sea bed on earth or the highest? And how do they measure age by deapth?

 

[Maccie]

Wake up2God, you have no excuse for not reading the "Nature" Link. You are in England, and were presumably educated, or are being educated, (you sound very young,)at an English school. Go and read it for yourself.

 

[Wakeup2god]

Did read it, and! The whole age dating thing is a load of nonsense. Simply made up by man.

Now Maccie, you too sound very young but as a lady that's probably a compliment. And I'm sure you have some kind of education so why don't you pick up your bible and read it. If by chance you're good at maths you can figure out the age of the earth roughly. I may be wrong but for some strange reason I thought you were a Christian. may have been the cross just beneath your name!

The fact that scientists count almost anything as life is no surprise. 'All of creation cries out to God', Have you ever read about 'trees popping'. Anyway, to say that we evolved from a bacteria is utter nonsense.

 

[seebs]

Do you really expect creationists to be seriously interested in the truth? They'd much rather cling to their prejudices; life's much more comfortable when you don't have to think.

Friend, I feel this is uncharitable. I believe many creationists are sincerely interested in the truth. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they have the scientific background to sanity-check the paper in Nature. I honestly don't think I know enough about the material under discussion to contribute usefully to a discussion of whether or not the paper in Nature was any good. Why should I expect them to?

That said, the confrontational response to the claims, without any kind of argumentation or support, is a little frustrating. But I don't think it's kind of you to impugn the motives of fellow Christians, even if their actions frustrate you.

 

[seebs]

Did read it, and! The whole age dating thing is a load of nonsense. Simply made up by man.

You will perhaps forgive me if I trust the article reviewers and editors at Nature a little more than I trust you.

And I'm sure you have some kind of education so why don't you pick up your bible and read it. If by chance you're good at maths you can figure out the age of the earth roughly. I may be wrong but for some strange reason I thought you were a Christian. may have been the cross just beneath your name!

This was a very insulting approach to take to making your argument, and cannot possibly contribute to unity in Christ. I believe you owe your sister an apology.

 

[Wakeup2god]

Do you really expect creationists to be seriously interested in the truth? They'd much rather cling to their prejudices; life's much more comfortable when you don't have to think.

What do you mean 'don't have to think, like blind faith? Like this rocks 10 million years old, OK I believe you just cos you said it! I know who I'd rather put my faith in. Do you ever spiritualize things arty, takes some thinking about.

 

[artybloke]

Friend, I feel this is uncharitable.

Probably is. Not in a charitable mood today. And I don't think they are interested in truth. That's why creation "scientists" tell so many lies.

 

[seebs]

Probably is. Not in a charitable mood today. And I don't think they are interested in truth. That's why creation "scientists" tell so many lies.

It is one thing to say that, say, Kent Hovind, who has a reasonably well-documented history of dishonesty, is "not interested in the truth". However, the people on this BBS deserve more charity than that.

 

[Wakeup2god]

Well if I have offended anyone I appologise, I'm not too big for that. Was simply replying to 'my sisters' comments earlier

you have no excuse for not reading the "Nature" Link. You are in England, and were presumably educated, or are being educated, (you sound very young,)at an English school. Go and read it for yourself.

Regarding trust. I would much rather trust God than science. Sorry if you find this offensive.

Blessings

 

[Maccie]

Wakeup2God, you are just being offensive. I have read your profile, and believe me, I am old enough to be your grandmother. And I have been a Christian for a great deal longer. None of that, of course, makes me any better than you, nor does it make you any better than me. So stop being offensive. I am not going to ask for an apology, because I don't believe you would be genuine. When you have matured a little in your faith, maybe then.

 

[artybloke]

I would much rather trust God than science. Sorry if you find this offensive.

I would much rather trust scientists than the liars at AiG.

 

[seebs]

Regarding trust. I would much rather trust God than science. Sorry if you find this offensive.

No, I think it's quite reasonable. I happen to disagree with you about what God has said, and how He has said it, but I think we are agreed that, whatever He said, it's important.

 

[Wakeup2god]

Dear Maccie

The fact that you're old enough to be my grandmother means nothing as does the fact that you've been a believer for X amount of years. For your information I was walking the road back in the eighties but allowed my eyes to be drawn from the truth.

I've known older ladies than you with many more years as a Christian to have behaved like spiritual babies. I've also known older and longer serving ladies that have shown more humility.

I do apologise if I have offended you in any way and am sincere in my appology. Whether you receive it or not is up to you.

The truth does set us free if we have the ears to hear it and the faith to believe it.

Blessings