How could it survive millions of years? If the earth is really that old, the marrow should not even be there should it?
127229
What makes you think that somebody capable of correctly answering that question, like a paleontologist that actually worked on such fossils, would be on Answers and would actually explain it to a dumbass like you?!??
569865
ok first of all just because one thing the bible says is true,that wouldnt make the entire thing true and second of all,originally the Earth was a ball of molten rock that cooled down.water didnt come around till later(im not sure how though)
492638
"According to astronomers, the Earth should last for at least five billion more years before the sun becomes a red giant. Due to the sun's loss of mass the Earth would escape to an orbit at a further distance than its current orbit. The immense heat however would likely boil off the oceans and turn the Earth into a barren wasteland looking like Mars does. If the Earth survived this event, the sun would further evolve into a white dwarf and provide too little heat to sustain life."\n\nNormally I don't copy and paste but Wikipedia explained that a lot better than I could've. I guess the "five billion years" estimate is assuming that some other catastrophe doesn't happen in the meantime, like an asteroid impact or human-created disaster or anything like that. But if none of that happens, Earth will be here for a while yet.
594070
No.\nAlthough,I can't prove that it isn't possible...however,science has it's flaws-millions of years ago certainly does sound extremely distant!
13774
first of all, it isn't necessarily 100,000 years.  the radioactive waste is made up of radioactive elements.  the only way to measure the wasting of the radioactivity of a material is by half-life, or the time it takes for half of the waste to lose its radioactivity.  essencially, the waste will always be active, but eventually the amount that it is giving off decreases to an amount that doesn't affect humans.  weather it's 100,000 or 1000000 years depends on the material and how much of it.\n\nthe waste will always be there, but nuclear waste is really just radioactive atoms of elements like plutonium, uranium, etc.  it won't disappear, but it will eventually become harmless.
459441
Sure, and people used to live for over 900 years. Makes perfect sense. NOT!
20831
Around 4.57 billion years old.
127315
The very oldest species on Earth are the cyanobacteria, which seem to have \nbeen around virtually unchanged for nearly 4 billion years. This is based \non fossils of that age that have been compared under high-powered \nmicroscopes to existing species of these bacteria. Other bacteria that \nare about as old are the archaea, which thrive in acidic, high- \ntemperature, or high-radiation environments. \n\nAnother ancient organisms are the stromatolites, mounds of algae and \nbacteria that today grow in the Bahamas, Shark's Bay Australia, and a few \nother limited environments. They have been around, also largely \nunchanged, for over 3 billion years and at one time were the Earth's \ndominant form of life. \n\nOn the animal side of things, the brachiopod Lingula is probably the \noldest, having existed nearly unchanged for over 500 million years, and \nthe horseshoe crab (limulus) has been on the planet for several hundred \nmillion years, too. Since the average "lifespan" of a species is only a \nfew million years, having such ancient species around is very impressive. \n\nA good book about the earliest life is "Cradle of Life" by J. William \nSchopf. He is one of the premier scientists doing this sort of research. \nAt a more advanced level, he has edited two scientific books, "Earth's \nEarliest Biosphere" and "The Proterozoic Biosphere", which should be in If you are a "separator" (I’m not sure if that is the correct word), instead of a “grouper” there are a LOT of things you could see as very young species. For instance, marine iguanas (are they called green iguanas?) are very different depending on what island they live on. Some people see those as separate species so there are some that are still in the process of adapting to changes that are seen to be becoming a new species. Also, a lot of migrating birds can reproduce with different species to form new species that are not barren like mules or anything like that, they can become their own species I guess. But I think a grouper would say they are all the same species if they can interbreed and have offspring that can reproduce. Like, all green iguanas are one species.
216000
I actually did hear about that in my college Astronomy class. I think it's pretty awesome. I mean, what if our sun burnt out. Maybe we could still have a significant amount of solar energy and radiation that could help us survive. I'm not sure if the star is old enough to develop life or not. It could have already developed it, and we just have no knowledge of it.
446378
They're mentioned in the Bible I think in the way that a primitive society would write about dinosaurs. As giant beast and dragons and so forth.\n\nIf you listen to most Christians rhetoric about the dinosaurs, you'll realize they cannot reconcile archaeological findings with their own beliefs. Many of them deny the existence of dinosaurs all together. Some say they're not as old as science has claimed. Some even say they lived on other planets and when G*d used the material to make the earth he took the bones with it.\n\nThe fact of the matter is we are living with people who use an outdated reference guide for life. They cannot admit that they've been had. The earth is not 6000 years old. The earth is not 10,000 years old. Dinosaurs DID exist. And we evolved from a species similar to ourselves.\n\nI won't claim G*D did not create the dinosaurs....as I don't know. \nAnd I won't claim science is perfect....we all know it's not.\nBut when you take the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and throw it all out the window because of a book your mommy told you was true.....well, that's just stupid.
281559
it would take a million years to list that. just google it.
407753
All highly speculative give our limited time recording history.\n\nHowever, loss of circulation in the core would lead to loss of magnetic shielding and heavy flux of solar wind. It is believed this will make life very difficult for surface dwellers. Since the field is now weakening and is expected to pass through a minimum within the next few thousand years, we won't have to wait for hundreds of millions of years to find out!\n\nAlso given what little history we know, we expect that a few really big geologic shocks are in store before the end and our civilization isn't likely to make it through those. i.e. we're F'd before any of the really long term (and hard to predict) ends come about
96022
The very oldest species on Earth are the cyanobacteria, which seem to have been around virtually unchanged for nearly 4 billion years. This is based on fossils of that age that have been compared under high-powered microscopes to existing species of these bacteria. Other bacteria that are about as old are the archaea, which thrive in acidic, high- temperature, or high-radiation environments. \n\nAnother remnant of ancient organisms includes the stromatolites, mounds of algae and bacteria that today grow in the Bahamas, Shark's Bay Australia, and a few other limited environments. They have been around, also largely unchanged, for over 3 billion years and at one time were the Earth's dominant form of life. \n\nOn the animal side of things, the brachiopod Lingulaa is probably the oldest, having existed nearly unchanged for over 500 million years, and the horseshoe crab (limulus) has been on the planet for several hundred million years, too. Since the average "lifespan" of a species is only a few million years, having such ancient species around is very impressive. \n\nA good book about the earliest life is "Cradle of Life" by J. William Schopf. He is one of the premier scientists doing this sort of research. At a more advanced level, he has edited two scientific books, "Earth's Earliest Biosphere" and "The Proterozoic Biosphere", which should be in your university's geology or science library.
138366
in my opinion is it doesn't exist. because think about it we are coming out of an ice age. it makes sense doesn't it? fact: there have been ice ages. fact: there is a lot of ice in ice ages. so if you know about water then you know the same amount of it is here that was here when the earth began so literally it is dinosaurs piss. well during an ice age lots of stuff is covered in water/ice ( i know i live in Minnesota and it is known that it was fully covered with ice.). so where is all the water? in ice bergs, glaciers, etc. so it would make sense that to leave an ice age most things would melt right? so they are still melting they will finish melting and cover parts of the world, then it will slowly freeze causing an ice age. why would humans make that big of a difference? we are insignificant to the world.(everyone in the world could fit in Texas and it would only be as densely populated as NY city). so our vehicles and combustible engines couldn't have that big of an effect. but you say "what about the ozone thinning?" well i am not saying it hasn't but it was because of the CFC's(chloral floral carbons) which broke up the ozone by attaching to ozone molecules. but the CFC's are no longer around. the ozone is healing itself as it is meant too. their was no real hole only a thinning which is also bad. but now it is closing up and returning to normal. if you think that the co2 we produced cant be good well think about it it isn't that much and while the earth was cooling after being created it released tons of co2. so what people will notice in the next 1-9000 years is it will warm up but in that time it will also cool down and eventually there will be an ice age. just because the great human race is here doesn't mean that the earth will stop having ice ages as it has done by its self for billions of years. think about it. am i a genius or what i mean i just looked at what has happened in history wow who would have thought history would repeat its self\n\nnow to give you sorces and go into more depth on what i just wrote\n\nwell lets see first. ice ages.\n\nAn ice age is a period of long-term downturn in the temperature of Earth's climate, resulting in an expansion of the continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers ("glaciation"). Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist). More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, ice age is used to refer to colder periods with extensive ice sheets over the North American and Eurasian continents: in this sense, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. This article will use the term ice age in the former, glaciological, sense; and use the term 'glacial periods' for colder periods during ice ages and 'interglacial' for the warmer periods.\nMany glacial periods have occurred during the last few million years, initially at 40,000-year frequency but more recently at 100,000-year frequencies. These are the best studied. There have been four major ice ages in the further past.\nso we are in an ice age interesting that means it is warming up. well that is my argument but there is more so i will continue.\n\noh my sorce for the above exerpt is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ice_age... so go there and read more if u want\n\nhere is more reading on ice ages\nhttp://library.thinkquest.org/j001457/fa...\nhttp://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...\nhttp://www.geologyshop.co.uk/iceages.htm...\ni am not making this up ice ages exist this is the basis to my argument.\n\nthen i said there is ice and water and the same amount of water is here that was millions of years ago again not made up\n\nThere is about the same amount of water on Earth now as there was millions of years ago.\nsource: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/
258175
its only like 6,000 years old because it has been about 2000 years since Jesus came to earth and about 4,000 years before God created the world and the universe check with some bible experts
582044
I'm afraid you asked a loaded question.  I don't believe humanity *can* survive exponential growth of its population for very much longer.  I don't know if our species has years or decades remaining... but it seems unlikely we have centuries unless we make drastic changes.\n\nAs I look, right now, the world population, according to my source below, is 6,627,722,573.  \n\nI agree with what little I know about Albert Bartlett's views on population growth.  For years I (and many others) have said that unchecked growth is a grave danger.  We simply do not have the material resources of fuel (for transportation and electricity) and food -- and ultimately space -- for population to continue to grow indefinitely!\n\n'People, people, and more people' is the engine at the root of a great deal of what is wrong with the world, and is arguably responsible for a dwindling enjoyment of life on this planet -- Earth  is of limited size, after all.  \n\nTake *unchecked* population growth to its seemingly-absurd but perhaps inevitable conclusion -- we are so physically restricted that we can no longer even move.  Or maybe we run out of food long before then.  Or growing stress and intolerance has sparked a global war.  Or a new or mutated virus has destroyed hundreds of millions of people in a matter of months, thanks to our close quarters and constant global movement.\n\nIronically, it might be a virus that saves us -- or, at least those of us who survive.  Freed of the need to compete for food and whatever fuel generates our electricity, they would at least have *some* of the resources our ancestors did.  Of course, even those things may be scarce if that global conflict I mentioned sparked a nuclear war.\n\nBut besides all the doomsday scenarios that could happen, our quality of life must suffer -- must already be suffering -- from our incessant reproduction.  Unless we live in the ever-dwindling rural areas of the planet, we are increasingly bombarded by noise, rudeness, superficiality, the tick of the clock, and the intolerance of our ever-closer neighbors and highway "companions" (erroneously implying they are pleasant to be around).  The person in the next car or house probably feels the crunch of space and time just as we do, and stress is a growing problem.\n\nWhere there are more people there is more anxiety and fear, more intolerance of rudeness -- and more rudeness! -- more consumption, more noise, more constant construction and change, leading to increasing interruptions to our movement, and an increasing sense of instability... more stress (which is a catalyst for further reductions in many of the aforementioned areas)... and... less peace of mind, less fresh air, less reasonably-priced and readily available food (at some point), less awareness of nature (the sound of a stream having long been drowned out by the honk of the horn and the rumble of the engine; the chirp of a bird having been obscured by the chirp of the Nextel, and the violence-inspiring thump of the boom car)... I could go on and on.\n\nI believe we are causing our world to evolve (or at least change; evolution implies improvement) faster than we, ourselves, are evolving.  That strikes a dangerous chord in my mind.\n\nThis is to say nothing of the other species--plant and animal--we share the earth with.  There is a need for them, too, not to mention a birthright of survival for every animal on earth!  \n\nI'm not as sure as I once was that we are heading toward these terrible conclusions... population growth isn't the rule in every country of the world.  Indeed, there is a dwindling population in some places, and I wish I could say where, but I don't know.\n\nBut spend some time in a national park -- some real, quality time during which you *begin* to get a sense of what peace of mind is about, and how beautiful the *entire* planet once must have been -- and then tell me we don't have to pay close attention to the
229952
ask a christian or a muslim then you would know that no dinosaur was more than 6000 years old :D\nother than that i don't really know :-<