Do You Think It's Possible,The Universe Is Only 6000 Years Old

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

The areas adjacent to this area have good soil depth, what you would expect to find. No real old growth woods in this area, but areas next to it do. I am taking into consideration old logging as well.

Do you not think that the simple explanation for this is the the soil has dropped away down that near sheer drop underneath it due to:gravity?

The simple answer is that the earth is flat, and what is here now, was here in the beginning. Not likely.

It seems there is a misconception concerning the age of the earth. The OP poses the question is the earth younger than previously believed.

I stumbled upon a oddity that challenges logic. Certainly the first choice is to consider earthly processes to explain what I have found. Exhausting those possibilities you must consider other possibilities.

Trying to get a grasp on these odd "Concretions" I stumbled upon some new research that states they may not be as old as previously thought. And, the formation of Concretions are not exclusive to, Earth.

The results of this new study dramatically impact understanding of the rate at which concretions form. “Until now, the formation of spherical carbonate concretions was thought to take hundreds of thousands to millions of years,” co-author Koshi Yamamoto says. “However, our results show that concretions grow at a very fast rate over several months to several years.” This rapid sealing mechanism could explain why some concretions contain well-preserved fossils of soft tissues that are rarely fossilized under other conditions.

The team evaluated concretions in Japan, England and New Zealand. Not all concretions contain fossils; small versions, dubbed “blueberries” by JPL scientists, have been found on Mars.

Concretions Can Form Rapidly

It is not my intention to say all our earth arrived her via "space dust", only that, that space dust may have been in the form of very large amounts, in short periods of time, in specific places, over geologic time. Trying to date something not knowing its true origins would obviously cause great errors in dating our own planet.

Such a radical revision in formation rates, “at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales,” is bound to cause a stir among geologists who have assumed that concretions take up to a million years to form.

I can hear the screams now, how dare you go against "settled Science"! "Everyone Knows".......... bla bla bla....

The key take away from the above is "Assume". Geologist, for one reason or another are not allowed to consider "Other" geology from other planets contaminating our own planet. Especially if the theories concerning the Asteroid belt are incorrect, in that it is not a band of materials that failed to come together as a planet, but rather, was a planet that failed catastrophically, sending mass amounts of debris, soil, rock, clays, water, biology, and yes concretions, into the solar system, to be splattered throughout the solar system.

Ask yourself why the ancient writings do not state the asteroid belt is a planet that didn't form. Why do they say, it was a planet, that failed.

For anyone who is interested, I am willing to send samples of these materials to be Analyzed to a PO box, anonymously. I will pay the shipping charges. Just PM me the info.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

That website is not legitimate. It's strictly a promotion of creationism and it's purpose is to attack evolution, for the most part.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I can hear the screams now, how dare you go against "settled Science"! "Everyone Knows".......... bla bla bla....

No screams from me. Just shaking head in disbelief and sighing to self.

The key take away from the above is "Assume". Geologist, for one reason or another are not allowed to consider "Other" geology from other planets contaminating our own plane

Who is not allowing them from considering whatever the hell they like?

You find some normal looking rocks in a stream bed and leap to the conclusion that they are from space and in particular this failed planet of yours? No wonder you are not keen on the Scientific Method. It might get in the way of your beliefs.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

That website is not legitimate. It's strictly a promotion of creationism and it's purpose is to attack evolution, for the most part.

From the original source materials.

The estimated growth rates are at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales of concretion formation27,28.

Generalized conditions of spherical carbonate concretion formation around decaying organic matter in early diagenesis

Researchers at Nagoya University have analyzed dozens of concretions from three sites across Japan, England and New Zealand. Studying the chemical composition in a transect from the outer layers of a concretion towards the surrounding rocks, the researchers were able to crack some of the open questions. The chemical composition shows also that indeed the fossils play a role in the origin of the concretions. The element calcium, cementing smaller sedimentary particles together and forming the hard, compact matter, comes from the decaying organic remains.

More surprising were the results of the growth rates. Concretions were thought to take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form. However, they instead apparently grow at a very fast rate over just several months to several years. This new observation could also explain why the fossils found inside the concretions are so well preserved.

Scientists Have Cracked The Mystery Of How Fossil Concretions Form

I'm not going to argue religious bios. All things must be considered by its own merit, or lack of. Other web sites are carrying the same results.

Weak argument. It is noted what you chose not to argue

The best evidence that we have says the universe is several billions of years old. If someone has evidence that can disprove that then I am fine with it. Their evidence just needs to be better than what we currently have.

If this is all a simulation then I am fine with that as well just show me the evidence.

a reply to: oldcarpy

You find some normal looking rocks in a stream bed and leap to the conclusion that they are from space and in particular this failed planet of yours?

If I'm not mistaken your the one who stated if they re-entered (entered) the atmosphere there should be blackened rocks. I simply gave you what you asked for. "Oh, well, um", "They are just normal, or ,errr, umm". You can't have it both ways.

"But, umm, there from a ancient fire pit, umm". Yea, everyone builds fire pits in a year round spring. "Oh, but there was no spring millions of years ago, umm" Yea, millions of years ago that rock would have melted into sand, 200 foot down, from all the space dust and soils that finally built up.

I'm starting to find your opinion both amusing, and confusing.

Just normal rocks, right.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

The areas adjacent to this area have good soil depth, what you would expect to find. No real old growth woods in this area, but areas next to it do. I am taking into consideration old logging as well.

It seems there is a misconception concerning the age of the earth. The OP poses the question is the earth younger than previously believed.

I think that calling the thread a misconception is pouring an awful lot of sugar and honey on the reality of this scenario.It's not a misconception, its a beckoning to a specific timeline based on literal interpretation of Hebrew scripture. A timeline that never existed prior to the second half of the18th century and isn't supported by Hebrew scholars.

stumbled upon a oddity that challenges logic. Certainly the first choice is to consider earthly processes to explain what I have found. Exhausting those possibilities you must consider other possibilities.

yet it doesn't defy logic nor have all earthly processes been falsified.

to get a grasp on these odd "Concretions" I stumbled upon some new research that states they may not be as old as previously thought.

No, that's not what the research claims. It claims that in some instances, concretions form far quicker than previously thought. That doesn't mean the concretion is ny younger or older than previously thought. When an age or date is ascribed to a sample, it isn't based off of a single dating technique. 2 or 3 dating methods are typically used and forming faster doesn't make the sediment forming the concretion any younger and certainly doesn't affect the strata the formation is located in.

, the formation of Concretions are not exclusive to, Earth.

That has been known for over 20 years when "blueberries" were found in

The results of this new study dramatically impact understanding of the rate at which concretions form. “Until now, the formation of spherical carbonate concretions was thought to take hundreds of thousands to millions of years,” co-author Koshi Yamamoto says. “However, our results show that concretions grow at a very fast rate over several months to several years.” This rapid sealing mechanism could explain why some concretions contain well-preserved fossils of soft tissues that are rarely fossilized under other conditions.

The team evaluated concretions in Japan, England and New Zealand. Not all concretions contain fossils; small versions, dubbed “blueberries” by JPL scientists, have been found on Mars.

Concretions Can Form Rapidly

It is not my intention to say all our earth arrived her via "space dust", only that, that space dust may have been in the form of very large amounts, in short periods of time, in specific places, over geologic time. Trying to date something not knowing its true origins would obviously cause great errors in dating our own planet.

It's not a terribly difficult thing to compare the isotopic signatures of earth based formations to those of Mars for example as we know what chemical signatures each planet will demonstrate. And could you explain exactly what makes it difficult to date?

Such a radical revision in formation rates, “at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales,” is bound to cause a stir among geologists who have assumed that concretions take up to a million years to form.

The key take away from the above is "Assume". Geologist, for one reason or another are not allowed to consider "Other" geology from other planets contaminating our own planet.

This is patently false. Zero truth at all in your statement regarding what geologists can, can't, do or do not study. If this were true, why is there an entire field dedicated to astrogeology? Not only are geologists studying the geology of other bodies in our solar system, they're applying this knowledge to objects found on earth, that did not originate here and vice versa. There is a lot of cross disciplinary study in these particular areas. Not being aware of it isn't the same as it not existing.

if the theories concerning the Asteroid belt are incorrect, in that it is not a band of materials that failed to come together as a planet, but rather, was a planet that failed catastrophically, sending mass amounts of debris, soil, rock, clays, water, biology, and yes concretions, into the solar system, to be splattered throughout the solar system.

Even if the Main Asteroid Belt had 100 times the mass that it contains today, it still wouldn't be half the size of mars and nobody has demonstrated evidence of a single planet of such low mass being able to exist between mars and Jupiter that catastrophically exploded, rained debris down on the earth and messed up every single dating methodology at our collective disposal.

yourself why the ancient writings do not state the asteroid belt is a planet that didn't form. Why do they say, it was a planet, that failed.

I'd rather ask you to provide the ancient texts that talk about this. Nothing personal, I just like to see for myself what people base their ideas on for purposes of context. Thanks

anyone who is interested, I am willing to send samples of these materials to be Analyzed to a PO box, anonymously. I will pay the shipping charges. Just PM me the info.

your best bet is to find a local geologist thats willing to take a look at the entire site. nobody will make any iron clad determinations without being able to see the local geology and the specific strata containing the items you have deemed questionable.So just sending out random samples devoid of proper chain of custody, isn't likely to get many bites. Getting the opinion of a geologist and then being able to pose your queries and concerns directly to them would be your best bet.

good luck getting the answers you seek.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

That website is not legitimate. It's strictly a promotion of creationism and it's purpose is to attack evolution, for the most part.

From the original source materials.

The estimated growth rates are at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales of concretion formation27,28.

Generalized conditions of spherical carbonate concretion formation around decaying organic matter in early diagenesis

Researchers at Nagoya University have analyzed dozens of concretions from three sites across Japan, England and New Zealand. Studying the chemical composition in a transect from the outer layers of a concretion towards the surrounding rocks, the researchers were able to crack some of the open questions. The chemical composition shows also that indeed the fossils play a role in the origin of the concretions. The element calcium, cementing smaller sedimentary particles together and forming the hard, compact matter, comes from the decaying organic remains.

More surprising were the results of the growth rates. Concretions were thought to take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form. However, they instead apparently grow at a very fast rate over just several months to several years. This new observation could also explain why the fossils found inside the concretions are so well preserved.

Scientists Have Cracked The Mystery Of How Fossil Concretions Form

I'm not going to argue religious bios. All things must be considered by its own merit, or lack of. Other web sites are carrying the same results.

Weak argument. It is noted what you chose not to argue

Unless you're suggesting planet Earth formed around a giant fossil, this is apples and oranges. Concretion is not a model for how to grow a planet in under 10k years

a reply to: peter vlar

Even if the Main Asteroid Belt had 100 times the mass that it contains today, it still wouldn't be half the size of mars and nobody has demonstrated evidence of a single planet of such low mass being able to exist between mars and Jupiter that catastrophically exploded, rained debris down on the earth and messed up every single dating methodology at our collective disposal.

First, I present Titius–Bode law

A theory that predicted a planet should be in the orbit of the Asteroid Belt. And that, is why Ceres was discovered. Ceres is thought to have been the "Core" of the planet that existed there. I'm certain you are familiar with that law. Not perfect, but good enough.

Phaeton (hypothetical planet) was its name from Greek Mythology. From the Ancient Sumerian Cuneiform, its name was "Tiamat".

In as far as the materials present to reconstruct the, A, planet, much of the material would have been lost to space or bombarding the rest of our planets. And, it may not require as much material to create a Planet as previously thought, if Halley's original theory (Mass) on the moon and Earth are correct. If you have not studied Sir Edmund Halley then I would suggest you do so. He is famous for another Theory that does not get much press these days.
Politicaly Incorrect!

If you are not familiar with the Ancient Cuneiform tablets please consider doing so. It speaks of many pre flood events. Of course it is all debatable, but that is one of the major stumbling blocks. Some refuse to consider it a accurate telling of the past and refuse to allow it to be considered. It told of wars on Mars (Lahmu) and the devastation. Today, science is on the verge of proving that.

I'd rather ask you to provide the ancient texts that talk about this. Nothing personal, I just like to see for myself what people base their ideas on for purposes of context. Thanks

Context. Something that has been lost to time, Context! There actually is, a missing link. And that missing link intends on remaining, missing. Take special note when you get to the part where "The Secrets of Heaven and Earth shall be withheld from mankind". Nothing personal taken.

Please read it twice. It is a great time span that is covered. Many trips through the crushed bracelet (Asteroid belt) where debris was blown out of the way by water cannons so their craft could traverse the area. And if true, then that material was lost and not recoverable, or present to be counted.

Your welcome

The Lost Book of Enki

Context? Things have been hidden from us, intentionally!

a reply to: TzarChasm

Unless you're suggesting planet Earth formed around a giant fossil, this is apples and oranges. Concretion is not a model for how to grow a planet in under 10k years

I'm not saying it is. I'm only pointing out how "settled" Science, is not always settled.

But on the other hand it can demonstrate the confusion in contaminants found, and dating errors because of it.


Maybe, planets are formed around some type of fossil, after all. And since no one had been to the center of the Earth and returned to tell about it, nothing can really be ruled out. Well, no one in "Modern Times", that is.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I'm not saying it is. I'm only pointing out how "settled" Science, is not always settled.

Nothing in science is ever settled. It's always an open book. New technology, especially new instrumentation, can turn a concept upside down and change the way we perceive something.

Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. The book of knowledge is never finished.

what I want to know is , if god created us , then why is it that life only has a small window of opportunity to exist in the universe given that all life will be extinct in the future of the universe as the suns will all turn to white dwarfs
Did god only plan for us to live for a small period of time ?

If he created the universe for us , then why are we only here for a small time ?

like we have been given a time based puzzle to solve !

Thanks by the way

a reply to: Phantom423

we are certain of our uncertainty

a reply to: sapien82

Now that's the type of question I like to ponder, and when pondering the first thing I have to remember is the time your talking for that to happen and the truths we think we know now can all change. We may have evolved to the stage of existing outwith the Universe or even our human bodies may just be a material vessel for something far greater, the supreme being or even the soul of the solar system and our sun, it's own destruction could even be it's/our birth into something else, a never ending death/ rebirth scenario..,.. is just one wild idea.

originally posted by: sapien82
what I want to know is , if god created us , then why is it that life only has a small window of opportunity to exist in the universe given that all life will be extinct in the future of the universe as the suns will all turn to white dwarfs
Did god only plan for us to live for a small period of time ?

If he created the universe for us , then why are we only here for a small time ?

like we have been given a time based puzzle to solve !

Thanks by the way

Intergalactic timeshare?

a reply to: Flavian

hey now that's a good one !

homo sapiens are only allowed the universe for 1 million years then its time up for us !

and the next species gets a chance somewhere else

a reply to: sapien82

Or, as a kicker, that God is simply an inter dimensional con man.

"What's that Adam, your scratchcard is a winner? Jump in this taxi with me and i will take you to get your prize. You just have to sit through a tedious chat for the next couple of million years with some of my representatives......."

a reply to: Flavian

You know I was just watching a video about the universe and one of the theories is that advanced civilsations could create an atom smasher that can create enough energy to create a baby universe to act as a life boat for intelligent species seeking to escape the entropy death of our own universe !

Is it just me or is the LHC a precursor to that "baby universe" creating collider which will see the creation of the first baby universe for all of humanities richest and most powerful to escape the entropy death of this universe and hide out in there !

maybe that is what has happened from the first universe ! the first intelligent species knew this and started creating a new baby universe each time trying to outrun entropy!

Surely there must be an upper limit as to how many of these universes can be created or maintained within the larger system that houses all possible universes !
Or maybe it too is limitless

Cool at least theoretically we can create a new universe once this one is #ed!

Shame we wont see , only the rich and powerful will get to escape entropy death !

So yeh looks like God is a cheat who keeps creating new universes to escape the entropy death , I wonder how many have been made and abandoned already


at 23:18 the video talks about the theory of multiverse and escaping entropy death !

maybe we are already in a simulated universe and the first one was the garden of Eden !

a reply to: sapien82

The multiverse theory is certainly intriguing. I always thought of it as a flight of fancy until i watched a docmentary on the work being done at the Max Planck Institute. They were interviewing one of the mathemticians leading the research into that particular field (can't remember his name which is helpful!) and he actually demonstrated the maths to back up his theory.

Well, allegedly. It was too complicated by miles for me. It could also have been a big con and was simply his mathematical version of his shopping list. Looked impressive though!

In theory though, no, there could actually be an infinite amount of universes in a multiverse scenario. It was a cracking doco, BBC4 science one.

Personally, i always like to think that our Universe is simply a cell in a giant beings (or normal sized and we are tiny like bacteria) finger. Or, more likely given the state of our end of the universe, the sphincter.

a reply to: Flavian

makes absolute perfect sense since we have this

LHC spies hints of infant universe

Now think about humanity for a second , say humans dont destroy themselves and we live to the age where our sun is dying , and because of entropy death all systems in our universe will die , and as humanity has lived beyond this age they have sought to find ways to get out into another universe , so we discover how to by atom smashing and having vast amounts of energy at our disposal , they time travel back to our time and tell us to start work on this now !

Are we really just trying to escape death , not only are we attempting to find immortality but true universal galactic immortality!

Humans and their ego eh!