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.

 

Oldest fossil ever found on Earth dating back 4.2bn years shows alien life on Mars is likely

page: 2
58
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Guess they better re-write all those history books, and update all those scientific timelines. Again.


And that's why people who buy into this stuff without really questioning it at all are gullible fools.

When someone's story changes consistently again and again, believing them blindly is not pragmatic nor wise.

Of course, consistency doesn't automatically relate truth nor does inconsistency preclude validity, but when people are in the habit of just believing what they are told immediately - you know there's a problem.

Although the "Scientific Method" is sound, the average person has made "Science" into just another mindless religion full of dogma and unreasonable superstitions. This thread and it's vast credulity are perfect examples of that. I concede that it's not quite as bad as something like Scientology but this "Science" mythology is almost there in terms of how it's followers operate psychologically and how the 'cult' conducts itself.




posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Would you care to go out and find me a person whose scientific curiosity is great enough that they would seek out new scientific reports, but too small to question them? I have never met such a person. Generally speaking, people either give not a single damn for science at all, or are, simply by way of having sufficient curiosity to indulge in reading its latest finds at all, more than capable of understanding that science is a process, not an ideology, and therefore to question everything is far more sensible than to question nothing.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
They've been lying to us Big Time. We need full disclosure NOW.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: muzzleflash

Would you care to go out and find me a person whose scientific curiosity is great enough that they would seek out new scientific reports, but too small to question them? I have never met such a person.


Judging by the reaction you had to this prior to being prodded into skepticism, I'd say you are a great example of the person you're asking me to find. You didn't express one bit of skepticism, and not only that, right now you're backpedaling and trying to justify it with a cover-up of the obvious reality.

By saying you've 'never met such a person' you're a liar (or absurdly oblivious) too.
ATS is clearly full of people that fit this description no matter what side of any issue you're on.

I had no intentions of personally attacking you (or anyone in particular) but you asked me to find you a person to make an example of and I'm indulging you at your request.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

You had no intentions of personally attacking anyone? I see. I remain skeptical of that, since the second paragraph of your post above, suggests that I am a liar, which is an attack, an accusation which I neither accept nor take lightly. I would thank you to mind your bloody manners.

As for the topic at hand...

What makes you think I have accepted this entirely? Do you think I believe that this is the earliest lifeform to have existed on Earth? Do you think I believe that nothing can have come before it? Do you think I have already made up my mind about the size of the Universe we are in for that matter? The reason I have expressed little skepticism, is that expressing skepticism would, at this point, be rather moot. The information in the article is utterly fantastical, after all. It just so happens, however, that this find rather gels well with some of the conclusions I had personally reached, about the likelihood that the previously thought of as oldest critter found, was merely one in a line of ancient lifeforms, which makes a great deal of sense if you think about it. The planet was going through a massive state of flux during the period between the crust beginning to form, and the stabilisation of the atmosphere into something half way recognisable. It is probable that if life existed on the planet during the end of the molten phase, the changes it was put through, between then and the formation of a proper atmosphere, would have necessitated rapid adaptation and evolution in order to protect it from the ever changing circumstances, meaning that there would have had to have been many different microscopic creatures, coming and going as the conditions changed, rather than just one or two.

The possibilities presented by this articles contents being accurate, are staggering, but one would have to be a halfwit to just accept them, absent any other data. The fact that they also happen to fit some very interesting gaps in our understanding of life on this planet, which corroborates the story quite well for now thank you very much, is why I am allowing myself to get a little giddy about this situation. It is not because someone just wrote a gospel that I like the flavour of.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: gort51




"All hail science!!!





www.conservapedia.com/Scientism
Feb 10, 2017 - Scientism. Scientism is the belief that the scientific method has no (or few) limits and can successfully be applied to almost all aspects of life, and provides an explanation for everything. It is essentially a religion where its followers (Scientists) worship science its rituals, and its results.


From your article



“Early Mars and early Earth are very similar places, so we may expect to find life on both planets at this time,” said doctoral student Matthew Dodd, the lead author of the study which was co-funded by Nasa.

This does actually stink of a lead up to announcing what they already know, life on Mars.
edit on 2-3-2017 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: Snarl
People have little idea of how old the Earth is. Common sense would dictate it is far far older than the 4-or-so billion years science postulates. Somebody found a way to date it beyond 4B years. The number was big. People latched onto it and the rest is legend. Since then ... they've been playing it safe ... but it continues to age.

Cool thread, brother Chris. S&F


40 years ago in school it was 13.5 billion years old we were taught , and the earth was expanding ! , The weird thing is people my own age from other areas were never taught this or many other things that i thought were the norm


No man. 40 years ago in school you were taught the universe was 13.5 billion years, and that Earth was ~4. Also -- not that the earth was expanding, but the universe is.

40 years is a long time, but you just mixed up earth and the universe, or your teacher did, it'd be an awfully amazing coincidence for the numbers to be accurate and the theory of expansion to be accurate, but for it to be applied to the wrong object.
edit on 2-3-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Thank u for getting that...

My humor tends toward dry...
And by "dry", I mean not funny


-Chris



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: Snarl
People have little idea of how old the Earth is. Common sense would dictate it is far far older than the 4-or-so billion years science postulates. Somebody found a way to date it beyond 4B years. The number was big. People latched onto it and the rest is legend. Since then ... they've been playing it safe ... but it continues to age.

Cool thread, brother Chris. S&F


40 years ago in school it was 13.5 billion years old we were taught , and the earth was expanding ! , The weird thing is people my own age from other areas were never taught this or many other things that i thought were the norm

13.5 Billion is the age of the universe not the earth.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Oops! Sorry!!! Thought this was a Pelosi thread.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

We were taught 100 % that the Earth was expanding i can still remember the teacher telling the class the theory and showing us how all the coast lines matched up as i traced the Americas and cut it out of a old map in class But she did explain the continental drift theory as well . you may well be right on the age of the universe as it was long ago , but as i said my school seemed to teach stuff that other people my age in other parts of the country never got and look puzzled when you talk about



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Not a hard theory to get behind.




edit on 232017 by Snarl because: Smoother video



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

It makes you wonder what would happen if man kind stopped pumping 40 billion barrells per year of oil out of the ground , Maybe a way of stunting the growth of the planet



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Just because some kind of life was (again) found on Earth, doesn't mean it is anywhere else in the universe. And from my limited knowledge of probability and statistics, I'm not sure it even increases the odds of finding life elsewhere. That's not the way it works.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

The 5000 year old earth thing makes perfect sense if you understand it ( I'm not saying I believe it)

But let me explain it to you, let's say that you were on earth during day one of human creation... you would look around and everything else would of already been created, so to you, it would be like it had been there since the beginning of time - you just wouldn't know that the beginning of time was 5 days ago.... to you it would seem like the earth had been around for billions of years.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

You're right.

I think the greatest "supporting" evidence for life on other planets is the fact that life can exist on earth in all of its harshest environments, which doesn't mean that life might exist on a different planet, but it does show that it is very persistent on ours, and could be persistent in other places as well.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Lulzaroonie

I think that one of the interesting things about these critters, is that they may have come about during the period where the atmosphere was over rich in greenhouse gasses, but poor in terms of what we know of today, as life sustaining chemical content.

What sort of biological processes was this thing capable of? This discovery has so many potentially interesting offshoots!


Well...my theory on this very topic is that Earth sustains the current life until it no longer can. These tiny extremophiles may have completely covered early Earth and changed the atmosphere through natural process of biological excretion or whatever. Or the entire solar system could have passed through a completely different climate zone in the universe/galaxy and transformed whatever was here. Or a massive body impacted Earth and had other life forms on it that were able to adapt and evolve.

There are so many different ways it could have gone it is crazy.

Back to what I was saying...Earth sustains whatever life it has for however long it can. If Earth is 4 billion years old and everything that dies is essentially recycled by the Earth then who knows how many different life forms have been here. Anything organic, unless trapped in a certain material, will completely degrade over time. What if there have been multiple iterations of humans? Intelligence tells us to live in a certain habitation to account for weather and whatever hits...these habitations are not likely to be formations that naturally "petrify" us into something to be dug up...bacterial and small organisms are much more likely to be embedded in materials that survive billions of years because they are not "intelligent" and mass reproduce quickly.

Well...I have rambled long enough...essentially what I am saying is that we are but a small blip on the Earth...we too shall pass and be dug up in however many millions/billions of years and studied.

Yes there is panspermia, and yes our biological makeup has likely travelled through space and other planets are likely to be inhabited. There are simply too many options out there to not believe in other intelligence in the universe.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
There are people on here saying " because science changes and adapts whenever new EVIDENCE is produced, it is stupid to believe in science".

"Better change the history books and timeline, again".

I mean, how thick are these people?

"When I'm presented with new EVIDENCE I just ignore it and stick to the idea that there's a magic man who lives in space and knows the thoughts and feelings of everything in the universe", now THATS intelligent.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Actually, you might be somewhat off the mark there.

For a start, the period in the history of the Earth, which this creature would have been living in (in order to be caught up as a fossil in the particular rock it was found in), saw an Earth that is utterly unlike the one we live on today. The temperature, atmospheric situation and composition, the level of tectonic and volcanic activity, all of these were totally different to what we see today, such that any lifeform found from that period, would have to be an extremophile, just in order to even exist during that period, leave alone thrive.

When people who study the planets we have thus far found, to establish which ones might support some type of life, they take into account many things. Some of these have to do with the placement of a given planet, relative to its star, with information about the star itself taken into account. For example, a cooler star can have a goldilocks zone which is closer in, a hotter star has one which is further out, and so on and so forth. Further to that, you have the planets themselves, what kind of density they have, whether they are likely to be rocky or not, do they have tidal forces acting on them, either from other planets nearby, or from moons orbiting them.

If we know that lifeforms can exist on partially molten worlds, such as ours was when this critter came about, with high degrees of volcanic and tectonic activity, with atmospheres that are not yet oxygen rich, and with all the other drawbacks that this critter survived, that DOES make a difference to the probabilistic analysis one would do, to establish the likelihood of life being present on a given series of planets. It means we cannot discount worlds with only partially cooled crusts, it means we cannot discount worlds which have not yet formed oceans (since the oceans on our planet formed 3.8 billion years or so ago, which is significantly AFTER this critter would have been wiggling around). It changes the parameters of the search for life, opens them up.

In the future, when we do more than merely peer at the surfaces of distant worlds, but go to them to observe them up close as a matter of routine, we will not pass by these worlds which appear utterly hostile to life, because we have a better understanding of just how resistant to environmental risks, life can be.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak

You're spot on man. It's a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.




top topics



 
58
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join