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.

 

Is creation recycling even possible?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I was wondering, without going into all the detail about past intellegent civilizations, could there have already been a carbon copy (or reletively close model) of our present day Earth that previously existed? I'm talking millions of years back. And all great inventions of today were also invented then and produced, but then it happened...

Then Earth started to change. Corruption was evident. Power struggles were everywhere. The geological changes actually turned the Earth upside down on itself (numorous possibilities). Now when the smoked settled, and the elements melted back down to their original form. Then nature took back over and started the process of recreation, taking millions of years to get to we are today. Starting with neanderthaw, to the Egyptians, to the Romans, etc... All the way to today.

So I guess my question remains, is this cycle possible? I just can't concieve of our history, in compoarision to that of Earth. Now I know it took time to cool and make like suitable here when the Universe was created. But even if it was a Billion years worth of cycles, you could feasibly harvest dozens of nature cycles. What do you all think?




posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I just can't concieve of our history, in compoarision to that of Earth.

That's quite common. We live such a short time, millions of years seem impossible.

Anyway, I suppose alot can happen in the 4.5 billion years worth of Earth. I dont think much did. The world spun around, then life came along. And here we are. How will it be in another 50,000 years? The thought is just mind boggling. So many ages. What did people think of that 50,000 years ago?



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Your theory is very possible. Catastrophism is a fact, and the destructive power of geophysical processes over time is incredible.

On a larger scale, if you do the math on the Universe and visualize its structure as that of a very large black hole with polar jets, you will see that instead of a Big Bang, our Universe is part of The Big Fountain- immersed in an expanding polar jet- that recycles endlessly forever. The matter around us is not tens of billions of years old, or even hundreds or thousands of billions, but instead has been recycling for what can only be described as Infinity.

Plenty of time for Everything to have happened more than once.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by Chakotay]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
In a word... No.

Nothing existed on the face of the planet for billions of years.

If you imagine the whole 4.5 billion years of Earth history to be a 24 hour clock, with the planet coming into existance at midnight, then:

3am: First chemical reactions that replicate itself.
5:30am: Last universal common ancestor lived.
.....
9:23pm: First animals with backbones

So you see, the time between the first stages of life on Earth, and the first animals with backbones is a VERY long time...

Sources:
Our Dynamic Rock: Rock Around The Clock
Wikipedia - History of Earth



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Chakota, the fountain thing is very interesting. I wonder why this theory isn't more talked about.

Tek, Thanks for response, but I'm afraid I can't make since of it. You vaguely associated 4.5 billion years in 24 hours. Also, have you heard of the Galopagos islands? Those life cycles are extremely young. Only thoudands of years old. Please explain more... In more than "a" word.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I tried using the 24 hour clock analogy as it works for me when trying to get my head round just how old the Earth is, and for how little time us humans have existed. But maybe these dates will help:

Earth Born: 4,500,000,000 years ago
Life Started: 4,000,000,000
Last Universal Ancestor: 3,900,000,000
First appearance of oxygen creating bacteria: 3,000,000,000
First Appearance of oxygen using bacteria: 2,500,000,000
Multicelluar life appears: 1,000,000,000

First vertebrates: 500,000,000
First plants on land: 475,000,000
Evolution of the egg, first reptiles: 300,000,000
Dinosaurs extinct: 65,000,000

Man seperates from great apes: 5,000,000
Man uses tools: 2,000,000
Modern humans appear: 100,000
First settlements: 15,000

According to theory, it took 500 million years for life to start, but for the next 3 billion years, only single cells existed. Seeing as though Earth is 4.5 billion years old, for 3/4 of its life, only single celled life existed.

Nova did an excellent 4-part documentary about all this, using the 24 hour clock analogy. It's called "Origins", presented by Neil deGrasse Tyson. It was shown on PBS.

Maybe these links will help:

Wikipedia - Timeline of evolution
Nova "Origins" Minisite



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Tek, I understand your position now. Although the threads meaning was stepping into a new idea. All those things you say are someone elses theory. Not facts. The point of the thread was to ask of the possibility that modernization recycles. Have we been in this position before. One billion years ago for example. Everything you responded was nothing to support your answer but other peoples theories. You should try and think... Maybe they aren't right 100%. Learning is a perrennial thing. I'm not trying to sound condescending, I just want to point out that you were not on same page, thats' all. Peace. The Galapogos Island reference was a fact to support that life can manifest faster than we could've imagined. This supports life cycling, in theory, I pressume.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Tek, I understand your position now. Although the threads meaning was stepping into a new idea. All those things you say are someone elses theory. Not facts. The point of the thread was to ask of the possibility that modernization recycles. Have we been in this position before. One billion years ago for example.


I know what the point of your thread is - I just don't see how evolution and plate tectonics allow for another civilisation to have risen, destroyed itself, and the planet recycled it completely - there just isn't time enough to have done it.

Even if we make the assumption that Darwinism is wrong (life either evolves much quicker, or God places life on the planet), plate tectonics doesn't work fast enough for all evidence of a previous civilisation to have been erased from the geological record.

The oldest rocks we know of are in Greenland, at 3.9 billion years old - I also seem to remember that rocks of a similar age have been found in Australia. Thats not long after the planet formed. If life had already evolved, a civilisation risen, then fallen, then surely there would be some evidence in these most ancient rocks?

The point here is that not all ancient rocks get recycled by plate tectonics, and with a civilisation making a global impact on the surface of the Earth, there would be some evidence somewhere of a previous global civilisation billions of years old.

If ALL rocks were to be recycled to erase any trace of a global civilisation, how on earth would the civilisation have risen in the first place? Vulcanism in the form of volcanoes & earthquakes as the plates rub together would've made the surface uninhabitable, and wouldn't have done much for the atmosphere either, with all the poisonous gas & dust.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The Galapogos Island reference was a fact to support that life can manifest faster than we could've imagined. This supports life cycling, in theory, I pressume.


What Galapagos Island reference? All you mentioned was something about its life cycle being only thousands of years old, but you've not said what the proof actually is. If you elaborate on it, then I'll give it some thought



Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Everything you responded was nothing to support your answer but other peoples theories. You should try and think... Maybe they aren't right 100%. Learning is a perrennial thing. I'm not trying to sound condescending, I just want to point out that you were not on same page, thats' all. Peace.


Sure, I don't believe in the "Creation Recycling" idea. Yes, I use other peoples theories of evolution & Earth's history to support my position - the theories fit the evidence.

What you're doing is speculating, not learning



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Tek, All good thoughts. But you would agree that the conditions on Earth Millions of years ago were comletely different. And I would have to say that our geologist would agree that our methods of trying to study billions of years ago is primitive to say the least. Large Teradactals flying throught the air the size of 747's because of the air density from 100 million years is hard to wrap your head around.

The Gallapogos Islands reference was to indicate of the intricate "new life" that has been formed on the volcanic islands that are infants in comparision to what we have today. (translation) Life was created on many level insect, plant, reptile, mammal, etc... In just a few thousand years.

Also, the surace of the Earth is large enough to sustain intricate life on one side, while leaving the other side in utter damnation. Peace.

I need to learn how to box in previous replies. Any advice? AAC



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Tek, All good thoughts. But you would agree that the conditions on Earth Millions of years ago were comletely different. And I would have to say that our geologist would agree that our methods of trying to study billions of years ago is primitive to say the least.


I would have to confirm it with a geologist here at UCLAN, but I'm pretty sure they'd agree that studying ancient rocks is actually quite good - we can do chemical analysis on the rocks to find out what the planet was like billions of years ago.

For example, I remember a recent story in New Scientist, where geologists had found ancient rocks in Australia, and discovered that liquid water may have been present earlier than they had previously thought. It was something to do with finding a particular mineral embedded within the rock.

But when you're talking about looking at ancient rocks for evidence of an ancient civilisation billions of years old, chemical analysis should show evidence of the effect the civilisation had on the planet. As such evidence hasn't appeared, and the evidence points to a planet devoid of life, with vulcanism turning the planet inside out, much as Io appears to us today, then I have to conclude an ancient civilisation didn't exist billions of years ago.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The Gallapogos Islands reference was to indicate of the intricate "new life" that has been formed on the volcanic islands that are infants in comparision to what we have today. (translation) Life was created on many level insect, plant, reptile, mammal, etc... In just a few thousand years.


Where is the evidence for that? Link please


I'd bet my house (ok, I rent, so I'll bet my landlords house!) on the fact that life on the Galapagos didn't spring up a few thousand years ago. Life on the Galapagos may indeed be unique to the islands, but thats called evolution - thats why Darwin used the Galapagos Islands as proof for his theory
But there is life which is unique to Australia, Madagascar etc. - thats not proof of life being young in those regions, its just life evolving due to local pressures away from the larger continents.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Also, the surace of the Earth is large enough to sustain intricate life on one side, while leaving the other side in utter damnation. Peace.


I'd have to disagree on this one as well. We can see with whats happening in the world now, atmospheric effects in one hemisphere effect the other.

For example, when Krakatoa exploded in 1883, the following year, the global average temperature was 1 degree celsius lower - and thats just one volcano exploding.

Another example is the Permian-Triassic extinction event, 250 million years ago. 95% of marine life, and 70% of land species went extinct, and was most likely caused by the largest volcanic eruption in earth history - the Siberian Traps erupted, covering 200,000 square kilometres with lava. Following on from the eruption, you have acid rain, global cooling, followed by global warming. All devastating to life on earth.

Its not the idea of a previous civilisation existing that interests me - over my previous posts in this thread, I've presented my arguments why I think its not possible - in a nutshell, the Earth isn't old enough.

But what does interest me is what future Earthbound civilisations may think of us existing and having our civilisation - in millions (or billions) of years, we may have evolved enough to get to the stage where we leave this planet, and a civilisation evolved from another great ape rises, and finds evidence of us. To get an idea of what I'm getting at, have a read of an alternative history/future:

The Human Series Time Lines


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I need to learn how to box in previous replies. Any advice? AAC


Press the quote button instead of reply. That'll give you the idea



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
This is going slightly off topic but i had a theory a while ago that really just disappeared but it is sort of like your idea.

The current idea of the universe is that first coems the big bang then the universe expands to an extend then it retracts into the big crunch which inturn creates a big bang.

If you dont include gods souls or anything else supernatural and you assume everytime there is the same amount of matter and energy (although at a small levelI believe they are the same thing and if there are no gods etc there will be no new matter or energy.) Then there are a finite number of combinations for this matter and energy. Because any matter and energy will react the same when put in the same situation (all the same amounts even at the tinyest level) then in theory this cycle will be repeated.

If you dont understand any bits ill be happy to reexplain cos ill admit its kind of hard to explain and im not a great explainer(is that a word)



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Tek, All good thoughts. But you would agree that the conditions on Earth Millions of years ago were comletely different. And I would have to say that our geologist would agree that our methods of trying to study billions of years ago is primitive to say the least. Large Teradactals flying throught the air the size of 747's because of the air density from 100 million years is hard to wrap your head around.

Absolute,
Hmmm, are you under the impression that pterodactyls flew through the air because the atmosphere then was somehow more dense?
No, the conditions on Earth were not completely different millions of years ago. The flora and fauna, for the most part was, and you could pick out an era that was different than the present weather wise, sure, but not really different than some more recent times, geologically speaking.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The Gallapogos Islands reference was to indicate of the intricate "new life" that has been formed on the volcanic islands that are infants in comparision to what we have today. (translation) Life was created on many level insect, plant, reptile, mammal, etc... In just a few thousand years.

Man, these creatures and plants migrated to the Galapagos, then evolved. They were not created there.

Harte



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
It could be that the earth is not as old as everyone would like to think. But there wouldn't be a carbon copy, they'd just break it down, as they're probably getting done right now, and then build it up again. Use the people, create perfect atmospheric conditions, let the earth rejuvenate itself. It'd suck if they're through with the planet though, and just need to make sure we're thoroughly crushed before bouncing off to somewhere else.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
www.livescience.com...

Hey Tek, and the other strict non-beleievers. Found an interesting artical that paints a different picture to how long ago life could've started. Interesting read.

AAC

[edit on 23-1-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   
I don't quite see how that article backs up your theory? If anything, it just shows that single celled life may have started a few hundred million years earlier than we had previously thought - remember, it took a further 3 billion years for multi-cellular life to evolve.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Where is the evidence?

The fact, we can go back through and fine dinosaur bones and so on and so fourth, however we do not find human bones or near to it...



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I was wondering, without going into all the detail about past intellegent civilizations, could there have already been a carbon copy (or reletively close model) of our present day Earth that previously existed? I'm talking millions of years back. And all great inventions of today were also invented then and produced, but then it happened...

Then Earth started to change. Corruption was evident. Power struggles were everywhere. The geological changes actually turned the Earth upside down on itself (numorous possibilities). Now when the smoked settled, and the elements melted back down to their original form. Then nature took back over and started the process of recreation, taking millions of years to get to we are today. Starting with neanderthaw, to the Egyptians, to the Romans, etc... All the way to today.

So I guess my question remains, is this cycle possible? I just can't concieve of our history, in compoarision to that of Earth. Now I know it took time to cool and make like suitable here when the Universe was created. But even if it was a Billion years worth of cycles, you could feasibly harvest dozens of nature cycles. What do you all think?


trying to back track.....

you might want to check out the "Eternal Fire & Ice cycle"

it is touched upon here:
www.metahistory.org...

i think the shared human memory has it that Celestial Gods were the 1st to inhabit-inherit the earth....they in turn had conflicts with the Titan gods and the Olympian gods....and after those classes of gods got 'overturned'...then humans became the recent dominionists on the planet.

it sorta been down-hill for eons, eh?

[edit on 24-1-2006 by St Udio]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I was wondering, without going into all the detail about past intellegent civilizations,


man-o-man

i'm afraid somethings screwy with my keyboard or something

[edit on 24-1-2006 by St Udio]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I would think creation recycling would be even more possible if there were a way to speed up the ravages of time and the aging process. It might be why these old white guys aren't too worried about spraying another country with depleted uranium, since it'll decay faster than everyone thinks it will, some day.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
For the sake of keeping this argument alive, before we found the remains of the skull in ethiopia, it was believed otherwise. The point is that every few decades we get some new discovery that reveal a different picture. I guess everyone has such a great concept of the chemical constituents for life that no evidenc could surface to prove you wrong. In 5 BILLIONS years! The point was just to see if the idea was feasible. So far, I'm not convinced othersise.

www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 24-1-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join