It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Age of the Earth - Can it be trusted?

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Before this becomes an even bigger religious argument, let me end it here.




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: stosh64

I don't discount antediluvian cultures. I just tend to think that, if unknown pre-history civilizations existed, that it was tens of thousands of years (even hundreds of thousands) before the supposed flood/cataclysm.

However… there's precious little fossil record or archeological record to support such theories.


There is a lot that doesn't fit the official fossil record. However I believe there is much evidence in the archeological record.
Largest known megalithic block from antiquity revealed at Baalbek
Many over 1000lbs, and the largest 1,650 tons.


Please tell me how things like this were accomplished by our ancient ancestors.

Puma Punku, This is my favorite. there is no earthly reason this is here.



Our current ideas of the Tiwanaku culture hold that they had no writing system and also that the invention of the wheel was most likely unknown to them.




I could go on and on and on, but seeing as you are owner here I am VERY sure you are aware of everything I would post.


My point is there is ALOT science cant explain, at least to my satisfaction.

You will never convince me ancient Andean people built Puma Punku.

I realize these structures may not be millions of years old, but my belief is that whatever built them may have been around MUCH longer.

I have my theories on this but to stay on topic yes, I believe the earth is VERY old.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

I don't believe that says they are YEC, It just says they don't buy into Darwinism.
Big difference in my book.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

This guy (below) figured out a way to move Stonehenge-sized blocks by himself.

Our ancient ancestors were just as intelligent as we are (they had the same brains we have, and the same capacity for problem-solving), so I think they could have been clever enough to figure out how to move really big blocks using non-powered equipment.



edit on 12/2/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I don't think we'll ever know the real age of our Mother the Earth. we are all like frogs in a well. Whatever the "most intelligent" source sais, we beleive it wihtout arguing... simply because we dont know any better.

I have heard 6000 yo, 1 million, 2 million, u name it....are any of these real? How the **** should I know. I try to live the present moment, so do I really care, No!! but am I curious??? Yes absolutely



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
Please tell me how things like this were accomplished by our ancient ancestors.


Applied Physics


There isn’t much written on this that’s available to the non-specialist, and most of what is available isn’t in English. At the risk of directing readers to a source that won’t be much use since it’s in French, I still think it’s useful to demonstrate that scholars have put serious thought into the trilithon, and have come up with workable solutions that have been successful in analogous situations (in this case, something even bigger than the trilithon – yes, ancient alien enthusiasts, the trilithon is NOT the largest object moved without modern machines; keep reading).



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Awesome video, I haven't seen that. That's why I love this site. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

New reading, thanks. I am open to new ideas, however I believe there is a whole other realm that science cant explain....yet.
I'm off to check out that site, thanks Skeptic.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Another reason not to watch any TV. lol Funny how they overlook this stuff to make a buck.



Despite the apparent simplicity of this energy source, we prefer to look to the human powered, with which the weakness in muscle is compensated by the extreme technical elaboration of the device multiplier used. In the event of a traction provided by the duration of the capstans, movement is a bit longer, since it multiplies the distance traveled by the load, in favor of the force and must ensure the in place and anchor machinery. The advantage of this method lies in the extremely small number of workers needed and the greater accuracy of the progression, allowing rigorous implementation of blocks the one above and beside the other. . . . Each capstan bar with four men using it would make 24 in total. . . . The force exerted directly by the capstan 24 men and six bar is at 20 kg per man of 480 kg. Taking center force application to 1.70 m from the center of rotation and a radius of drum of 10 cm, this force becomes (by a form winch) 8160 kg. Four cables of hemp, each providing four tons of traction, wind around the drum and by acting on the load through a hoist with two pulleys, generate a power of 16,320 kg of the machine; 13,056 kg reduced power by the coefficient of friction. Six of these machines, involving 144 men and providing traction power of 78,336 kg must allow, with a margin of excess power always useful, the transportation of each block of trilithon.”


Amazing how this and that video Soylent posted are not shown on the history channel. But I guess that wouldn't get as many viewers.

Time to toss the TV, ok way past time.

You have given me a lot to consider, thanks Skeptic




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Skeptic, sorry if this is off topic but do you have any info on how stones like Puma Punku may have been shaped?

I am soaking this up, thanks.

ETA: I am watching the 3hr movie, Ancient Aliens Debunked - (full movie) HD, it is from that site you gave me. If my question is answered in this then ignore it.


edit on 12 2 2014 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: IndependentAgent

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent

As more accurate dating methods are developed and more data comes in, the numbers will change accordingly. This is a good thing, it's how science works.

You can't really compare the results of dating methods from over 300 years ago and methods from today and conclude "the ages have changed, the science can't be trusted". A hell of a lot more has change over the last 300 years than just dating techniques.


Let us then only look at 2013, where the age was 4.3 BYO. At what stage should we trust the age? Because that means that after 300 years, science is in a way still not accurate.


Science is only ever as accurate as the extent of our current knowledge, and until we know everything it will always be changing. That is the problem with science.

Religious is much easier because unlike scientists, they already know everything so nothing ever changes.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Wow... that's a lot of distrust in your fellow man there, and some awfully paranoid thinking.

I know geologists at the university where I'm a lecturer, and my experience of them is quite honourable. Contrary to your paranoid hypothetical you have imagined, they would be overjoyed with an actual out of place specimen, and because nothing exciting ever really happens in geology, they would happily sit with you, and take you through their dating processes, without the specimen ever leaving your sight... they would likely be appreciative of the attention.

They may ask if they can write a paper about your find, because even writing is more fun than watching rocks.

For that matter... why wouldn't the young earth scientists that originally identified your bone in your hypothetical do the dating themselves? Keep the evidence in the hand of those you trust. If it's verifiable, then they can publish, confirming the anomaly, and as long as the science is sound and methodology presented, it can get peer reviewed and included in a respected scientific journal.

To date, out of millions of discovered specimens, nothing yet suggets such a young earth.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

It doesn't need to be a religious argument, unless your only evidence is a reigious book, then you are actually the one turning it into a religious argument.

Let's keep it clearly in the realm of science.

What evidence, beyond conjecture, can you present that supports a young earth?

If it is solid evidence, even those in this thread that are being a little rude to your beliefs will pay attention.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hellhound604
a reply to: IndependentAgent
well, according to some in 2014, the earth is only 6000 years old....


Or that one girl from Facebook who thought it was 2014 years old.... gotta love religious idiots.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: IWasHereEonsAgo

originally posted by: Hellhound604
a reply to: IndependentAgent
well, according to some in 2014, the earth is only 6000 years old....


Or that one girl from Facebook who thought it was 2014 years old.... gotta love religious idiots.


That doesn't make any sense, even if she were a believer in the bible being strictly literal.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah I get that, but you conveniently missed my point as to when human civilization started ie 7 million or 11,000 years ago.
It was my intent in posting the chimpanzee tool-making video that you would understand that your reference to older tools doesn't necessarily mean there was any civilization around at the time the old tools were in use. Also, I think you misread your source if you think it even implies 7 million year old civilizations...it doesn't.

www.panafricanperspective.com...

Africa provides a comprehensive and contigious time line of human development going back at least 7 million years. Africa, which developed the world's oldest human civilization, gave humanity the use of fire a million and half to two million years ago.
The human development it's referring to is evolutionary ancestors, not civilization. It mentions the oldest human civilization but it doesn't give an age and the timeline provided clearly shows it's not 7 million years. It's also not an original source...it links to another source which I followed, and got another link to another source, and that led me to a domain called africancontributions.com which is for sale and has no content.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: IndependentAgent
Before this becomes an even bigger religious argument, let me end it here.


why, because you cant handle the can of worms you tried to kick over?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Use search to find PumpaPunku threads, it's all been gone over repeatedly.

But in short, they had metal tools and those turds at ancient aliens lie about the rock types and how hard they are to work and the nature of the tools available. Wont discuss it further here as it's a big subject, contentious to some, off topic, and countless pages exist on it here already.

Just remember AA is entertainment only and contains no balanced evidence or analysis. Its just for fun.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: IndependentAgent
Before this becomes an even bigger religious argument, let me end it here.


why, because you cant handle the can of worms you tried to kick over?


No. Because it is part of the T's & C's of ATS.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Thing is, if there is evidence that is scientific as claimed - like because all these scientist support it like you said... then religion need not come in to it and you can use verifiable facts and evidence to form to your argument.......


Soooooo....



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join