400-Million-Year-Old Mystery: Giant Tree-like Object in Epoch Before Trees Existed

page: 3
60
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
perhaps there was once a living animate ancestor to the tree, 400 million years ago. Consider the "tree man", dude is covered by a strange fungus that makes his skin essentially tree bark. A mysterious fossil and a just as mysterious disease?

I wouldn't dismiss some kind of connection between the two.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Geez, I can't believe no one has mentioned this.
It's obvious those trees are the fossilized remains of the garden of eden and if they keep searching they just might find the fossilized remains of his and hers loin cloths too.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by polit
 


Sometimes one doesn't share the same sense as One.
You know what I mean.
@^@



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Excellent find, I want to know more but I bet there is as usual very little to be found. >_< Oh well I'll do some research. I wonder if there is any corollation to the tree like structures on Mars? HMMMMM.....



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing...

I don't know... All I can think of is how every now and then science makes a discovery that changes how we think... Like for example, I think it was just recently that we discovered the remains of a human ancestor even older than Lucy.... Which means that we did not know the full story...

So maybe there is something similar going on with trees... Maybe our idea of when trees came into existence is wrong...

Then again, I am hardly a scientist and really don't know much about this kind of thing...

This is a cool find none the less.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ImperialMaj
 


That's right. We all forgot. The earth is only 7000 years old.
Talking about bad science.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowed
Excellent find, I want to know more but I bet there is as usual very little to be found. >_< Oh well I'll do some research. I wonder if there is any corollation to the tree like structures on Mars? HMMMMM.....



www.amjbot.org...

Structural, physiological, and stable carbon isotopic evidence that the enigmatic Paleozoic fossil Prototaxites formed from rolled liverwort mats



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by six67seven
 


While I can't agree with your point, the fervor with which you push such an ignorant statement is confounding. What is bad science is looking in the Bible for scientific and empirical evidence. Carbon dating isn't the only way to tell how old something is. There are other isotopes besides Carbon 14 that can be measured accurately in fossils. Isotopes like Rubidium 87, which has a half life of 49 billion years and can be accurately measured, are in fossils and can be used, with mathematical, irrefutable formulas to find out the accurate age of objects. Carbon dating IS effective however for dating anything up to 50,000 years old, that is substantially older than 7000 years. Please, if you are going to spout nonsense, have something better than a half built evangelical paranoia site. Here is a real website on Carbon Dating where you can find all the facts you need.
www.acad.carleton.edu...

I also wanted to add that my link is from a college and not some guy who travels the state fair circuit showing how sediment layers couldn't be as old as scientists with electron microscopes think they are, because he can do math better apparently, the guy on your site didn't explain Radiological evidence very well, in fact he dismissed it as "Astrology" when in reality it has very precise scientific formulas, I'm sorry but you need more concise evidence than someone's opinion on fact....

As for gigantic mushrooms, I would go with the algae theory, but if evidence shows they stood, there has to be a reason for it...

Edited for grammar, because I went to a public school...
[edit on 18-2-2010 by scienforcer]


[edit on 18-2-2010 by scienforcer]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
We live in an age where the definition of logic needs to be reconsidered. Discoveries like this one brings us back to the fact that we know nothing...even though sometimes we are arrogant enough to say so.

Regards

halfmanhalfconfused



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 

But, can we relate forward the proto-stuff to our profligate use of oil?

If you can't, this outstanding find will be relegated to the dustbin.

How sad,

jw



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
We live in an age where the definition of logic needs to be reconsidered. Discoveries like this one brings us back to the fact that we know nothing...even though sometimes we are arrogant enough to say so.

Regards

halfmanhalfconfused


Why do people make these kinds of ludicrous statements?

Redefining logic would be like redefining the rules of mathematics. Logic is merely language constructs based upon mathematical rules. You can't change that, it is what it is.

There is no "fact" that we know nothing. The fact is that our knowledge is incomplete, the fossil record is incomplete. This latest find will only serve to enhance our knowledge.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 



I didn't see one shred of evidence showing that "Prototaxites" are 400 million years old let alone 7000. It also reminds me of the convenient "fossils are all nice and neat in geological order" claims, when that's not true at all. Have you ever noticed pro-evolution news magazines claiming things in their headlines like, "Fossil is evidence of missing dino to bird link" only for the article itself to contain a sentence that says, "Though the evidence isn't conclusive" and / or "More research is needed..." Remember the word "hype" or "sensationalize"? Remember the money angle too: exciting-sounding stories sell.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by triops]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by triops
 


That's because you can almost never truly prove anything in science. Only people on the fringes in science have any real vendetta against religion. It's the same as how fringes of Christianity have a vendetta against science.

The thing is, you can't measure time in the bible, remember these parts of the bible?
2 Peter 3:8:

‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Psalm 90:5:

For a thousand years in thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.


If you're such a fundamentalist you'd realize that your literal interpretation is just that, an interpretation. You can't say the Earth was made literally in 7 days because that day could be x number of years, it's God remember? He doesn't have to adhere to time because he created it.


While I am ranting here, it's more of a general rant at a lot of people in this thread you're just getting the brunt of it.
Have a nice day


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Mr Headshot]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anamnesis

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
We live in an age where the definition of logic needs to be reconsidered. Discoveries like this one brings us back to the fact that we know nothing...even though sometimes we are arrogant enough to say so.

Regards

halfmanhalfconfused


Why do people make these kinds of ludicrous statements?

Redefining logic would be like redefining the rules of mathematics. Logic is merely language constructs based upon mathematical rules. You can't change that, it is what it is.

There is no "fact" that we know nothing. The fact is that our knowledge is incomplete, the fossil record is incomplete. This latest find will only serve to enhance our knowledge.



You think too logical.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Let's try not to stray too far Off Topic, Please.


As well , Please address the Topic and Not each other.

TIA


400-Million-Year-Old Mystery: Giant Tree-like Object in Epoch Before Trees Existed.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
It has to be taken into account that the Earth was definitely less dense 400 million years ago. Everything from the atmosphere to the core would be less dense because there was less matter comprising this planet that long ago. We know that 90% of our water came from space and is known as dark water, or h3o. the amount of solids is unknown, but my guess is that its an astronomical number. not to mention the constant bombardment of protons coming from the sun.

that being said. if there were less matter, we would have a less dense planet, meaning less GRAVITY as well. We cant assume that the earth has always been in this state. any change in the material makeup of ANY of the planets would change its mass, density, and gravity.

a fungi would thrive in a low-pressure, low-gravity atmosphere. an increase in gravity would force this fungi to increase its density. It would do this by pulling its cells closer together, this increase in the fungi's density would cause it to thrive below ground now instead of above ground.

The fungi now are still trying as hard as they can to fight gravity. but they will never grow as big as that fossil because they cant produce a hard enough structure to fight gravity. that fossil had it easy, real easy. just like the giants that were said to have roamed the earth during biblical days. then god poured another tin of tomatoes into the spaghetti and the sauce got thicker, thus increasing our planets mass, and its gravity.

i hope this ramble makes some iota of sense. the major point of this is that E=MC2. an increase in the mass of a gravitational force will cause an increase the gravity of that force. any inhabitants of that gravitational force must comply....or die. you either get more dense to deal with the new gravity or....well...you go extinct. this might help explain why whales and porpoises have toes, and toenails. they couldn't deal....so they jumped in the sea. but the simpsons already did an episode on that, so you're not allowed to argue that point, or be ridiculed for even suggesting it.


[edit on 19-2-2010 by 7minds]



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Is it also a possibility that this fungi grew upwards as a kind of seeding technique? They would grow straight up as far as it could then break off and fall to the side giving a shadow over the ground where the new fungi could come up and grow and so on and in affect growing and covering an area to become bigger and bigger? Just an idea, very cool find. Peace.





new topics
top topics
 
60
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join