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.

 

60 Million year old kettlebottoms appear in a coal mine - Svalbard Norway

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Yes I do feel a bit dazed... It worries me that intelligent people can continue to let themself be blindfolded by "storybooks".


Well, it's not just the fact that they follow "storybooks", it's more the fact that they don't follow them very well. There's very little in the Old Testament that relates to any scale of time. What figures are given (eg extreme age of various figures, length of time taken over creation, etc) are always isolated numbers meant to give a sense of extreme length of time or extreme brevity. The only real focal point in time is the birth of Jesus - which we call year 0 (and historically speaking is probably accurate within around 50 years either side).

To knit together any kind of definitive calendar from the events in the bible is to be misled as to the meaning of those events. It comes from the same nonsensical theorising that suggests the end of the world is due in 2012 because someone in Mayan times ran out of space on his stone tablet for his 2013 year planner.

Long story short: utter nonsense. Self-aggrandising nonsense too - all designed to give homo sapiens an undeserved significance in the history of a planet upon which they remain a completely insignificant prick (and I use the word advisedly) on the timeline.

LW




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Well these trees, along with the science of "dendrochronology", ( tree ring counting ), would have something to say about the Earth being 5000 years old.

source



These bristlecone pines have been dated back to 7000 BC. There are some still alive that have been here for almost 5000 years!

No carbon-14 or any other scientific dating method required. Just count the rings. . .

Was this evidence also planted by Satan to throw us off?

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


Bloody hell, I had no idea something that old existed! Think about it, that tree pre-dates almost everything we've built.

Mind boggling stuff.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


Bloody hell, I had no idea something that old existed! Think about it, that tree pre-dates almost everything we've built.

Mind boggling stuff.


It sure predates everything we've made. But you said almost, what doesn't it predate ?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


I have absolutely no idea, stone axes? I wasn't talking about huge dirty great buildings or anything, just the small stuff that helped us along.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
It sure predates everything we've made. But you said almost, what doesn't it predate ?


Catalhoyuk. Approximately 10000 yr old settlement that amy have been home to anywhere from 5000-10000 people.

Im afraid it puts the argument of Adam arriving on the scene 6000years ago to bed.

Theres a thread on it in the Ancient civs forum, sorry im at work so havent the time to get a link for you.

mojo


(edit to add links cause im the boss. lol)

Catalhoyuk

14000 year old tool kit

[edit on 17/12/07 by mojo4sale]

[edit on 17/12/07 by mojo4sale]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
So when we prove life exists elsewhere on another planet will the bible be trashed or will more stories be added to it for the 212312312th time?

Anyway why would "satan" or anyone for that matter be bothered with planting trees in rocks 5 KM below the surface of earth? It just makes no sense to me.

How can you people be so ignorant? Why clingon on too false hope? Jesus was a fraud and god couldnt care less.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Sanity Lost
 

time should be questioned when concerning dates man started timing there lifes by something they could see not the hour hand of a clock so what would that be the moon its looked at everyday by everybody in a darker night so it shined even brighter at those times now take into consideration that there time is now based on a monthly calenader compared to our yearly calender now imagine that life spans were expected to last about 40 yeares old according to modern scientist but look at history in the bible they lived to be a thousand years old convert 40 years old modern scientist say to a monthly calender 40 x 12 = 480 years old average according to bible take the age of methusla 1000 years old convert back 1000 / 12 = 83 yeras old studies need to be looked at to convert old text in many ways the older calenders compared to modern calenders so forth



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sty
The existence of Adam and later the Flood of Noah would explain the extinction of the Neanderthals that are actually not related to humans .


So Adam appeared and Noahs flood happened around 27000bc then, because thats when the Neandertals became extinct.
That throws your argument of Adam appearing 6000 years ago out the door.

mojo



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
reply to post by tep200377
 


I have absolutely no idea, stone axes? I wasn't talking about huge dirty great buildings or anything, just the small stuff that helped us along.


Hehe, ok

but keep in mind that this is 60 million years old trees .. we haven't been on this earth for even a fraction of that time!



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377

Originally posted by Zanzibar
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


Bloody hell, I had no idea something that old existed! Think about it, that tree pre-dates almost everything we've built.

Mind boggling stuff.


It sure predates everything we've made. But you said almost, what doesn't it predate ?


Here's a couple;

Japan's underwater city

This one is 500,000 years old!

Homo Erectus dwelling



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Let me ask you one thing .. when did 500.000 years become older than 60 million years ?

-------------------------------
removed triple nested quote of entire post directly above

Please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 18/12/07 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


I feel for you tep,

Nice pictures. Thanks for posting.

Wiki actually has a good article on coal in a modern usage sense.
Wiki Article on Coal and its use.

Another Article.

60 million years is actually quite young for a coal bed I believe?

I go to an old Coal Mine above Sutton, Alaska every year collecting fossils. Leaves mainly but I'm actually looking for insects. I always see a couple of dozens others throughout the area doing the same. Huge tree trunks are visible in the coal layers all throughout the very large strip mining operation. The mine is no longer active so every spring as the walls of it slough off new stuff is exposed. The tree trunks are way to large to collect but I pick up smaller pieces if they are well formed.

Since coal is an old forest these trees and other vegetation are generally visible in all coal layers.

To push the thread a more productive direction, Modern Man is around 200,000 years old (give or take 60,000) as I recall reading recently. Which means the trees in your photo's are 50,800,000 years older than Modern Man. A very slight age difference.


[edit on 12/17/2007 by Blaine91555]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377

Let me ask you one thing .. when did 500.000 years become older than 60 million years ?


Never.

Zanzibar replied to my note about the bristlecone pines, then you replied to his reply. Therefore I was under the impression we were still talking about those trees not the OP's. Sorry for any confusion tep200377.

2PacSade-


-----------------------------------
Trimmed quadruple nested quote down to one

Please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 18/12/07 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheFence
How can you people be so ignorant? Why clingon on too false hope? Jesus was a fraud and god couldnt care less.

Yet, you believe in Reptilians.
Hello Kettle!

I will quote you from a reptilian thread:

I too have seen them and i totally agree with you.
My Nan tells me that they are not so bad and that we should give them a chance.
She even invites them round for dinner sometimes. I cant stand it when they shape shift either!


You should have a little more respect for the beliefs of others even if you think its crazy. Its very hypocritcal of you to say what you do about religion yet believe in Reptilians. At least religion has some archeological and written evidence unlike your reptilian beliefs.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
60 million years is actually quite young for a coal bed I believe?


Thanks for the post Blaine

They may be 80 million years old I think.



I go to an old Coal Mine above Sutton, Alaska every year collecting fossils. Leaves mainly but I'm actually looking for insects. I always see a couple of dozens others throughout the area doing the same.
Huge tree trunks are visible in the coal layers all throughout the very large strip mining operation. The mine is no longer active so every spring as the walls of it slough off new stuff is exposed. The tree trunks are way to large to collect but I pick up smaller pieces if they are well formed.

Since coal is an old forest these trees and other vegetation are generally visible in all coal layers.


Yes, as he told me ( the guy who gave me the pictures ) it was a whole forest, and this was just a small part of it.



To push the thread a more productive direction, Modern Man is around 200,000 years old (give or take 60,000) as I recall reading recently. Which means the trees in your photo's are 50,800,000 years older than Modern Man. A very slight age difference.

[edit on 12/17/2007 by Blaine91555]


That was my point to

Thanks for a good post !



Originally posted by 2PacSade
Zanzibar replied to my note about the bristlecone pines, then you replied to his reply. Therefore I was under the impression we were still talking about those trees not the OP's. Sorry for any confusion tep200377.
2PacSade-


Ah, thats ok then
sorry for any missunderstandings.




[edit on 17-12-2007 by tep200377]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


You do not use carbon dating to date sea shells. This is because animals that produce shells take part of the carbon from CaCO2 that is already in suspension in the water and likely the result of weathered material. As a result, dating of sea shells would produce a significantly older date then the actual date of the shells.

Carbon dating is used on biological mater, particularly plant matter (e.g. burned charcoal from hearths, etc), as that the carbon absorbed by the trees is taken from the soil and is derived from recently dead organisms.

Carbon dating is accurate up to 60,000 bp and is highly accurate up to approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years based upon calibration using dendrochronology (tree ring dating).

They are many other ways to date deposits older than 60,000 years+, potassium-argon dating, electron spin, etc, paleo-magnetism, etc.

Trees and fossils in coal beds is common as that coal is a sedimentary rock, and many coal deposits are derived from plant matter in swamp environments.

It would be nice if people had payed attention in science class before they go criticizing well understood scientific principles.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

You should have a little more respect for the beliefs of others even if you think its crazy. Its very hypocritcal of you to say what you do about religion yet believe in Reptilians. At least religion has some archeological and written evidence unlike your reptilian beliefs.




As if i believe in reptillians!

-------------------------------------
Trimmed big quote down to relevant bit

Please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 18/12/07 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   




So I guess you were just lying and making stuff up in the reptilian thread from which I quoted you above. That still does not bode well for you.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
What is amazing to ne, as a Christian, is how you atheists on this thread think you know quite a bit about the Earth and it's history, yet you really don't know much at all. You look at ancient tree rings and say that it was all part of something that came from nothing at all and sort of self created itself into being all by itself. Oh, now that is really smart don't you think. Yet I look at the same tree rings and by them I can say that the Earth is millions if not billions of years old, and not cotradict a word of the Bible which I believe is accurate. It is you atheists who live in la la land storybook fantasy world. You simply hate God for whatever reason to the point that you can't accept an alternate view. This makes you narrow minded don't you think? You'll never get answers to question when all you'll listen to is "the one atheistic viewpoint". If it seems like I'm trying to bat you about the ears, it's because you have it coming. Why don't you actually try to explain things in your atheistic way and not just resort to name calling. People who do that, do it because they are unsure of what they believe in.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join