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.

 

Chunk of original earth found

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Funshinez
 
ok i do not believe in radio carbon dating for it too is off by 1,000 years


There are other materials used in radiometric dating, not just carbon. Carbon dating can only go back some thousands of years.


Originally posted by bekod
Noah


There's no actual evidence that Noah existed, and the supposed story of Noah existed earlier with the story of Deucalion.




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 
than you for that reminder, i could not find my notes on that.
but yes the earth is much older than we think, it would not surprise me to find one day, that the earth is 600 Billion years old.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 
i suppose you never heard of Gilgamesh? or the story of the gator and the turtle of the out back? what about the sphinx of Egypt? one can not go by one story alone, must have others to validate.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

There's no actual evidence that Noah existed, and the supposed story of Noah existed earlier with the story of Deucalion.


This is getting absurd seriously.

Debating "Noah" proves you guys are ignoring the real deal here.

There is clearly erosion evidence of a global flood (possibly multiple floods) that can be found on mountains around the world, and not only that, but almost every culture on Earth has "flood stories and myths" that detail the account.

And tons of those cultures even mention people who built an arc to survive the most recent flooding.

So it's pretty obvious that it happened at some point.

Here I'll try to make it real simple.
Picture the Antarctic Ice Cap on Earth.
Imagine it melting. There you go, world-wide global flooding.

You do realize the ice cap is miles thick at many points right?? Thats plenty of water to cause a huge rise in the sea level.

And don't bother throwing statistics about the amount of ice on Earth at me, it's pointless. There is no way to accurately calculate the amount of ice, other than to say in general terms "There is a crap load of ice, obviously enough to flood the Earth to some degree, although what that degree is, is debatable".

So lets just drop the Noah non-sense before it really starts getting outta hand. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
from the time when Earth was nothing but molten rock

Is this not presupposing that the earth was at one point nothng but molten rock? Any witnesses that confimed this empiracally? Way to let a backwards worldview interpret evidence. This is almost as bad as people observing unidentified objects in the sky, and then concluding that they prove life on other planets exist. Oh science, what has happened to you?

If you want real empiracal science that disproves the theory of a molten earth original earth, look up Robert Gentry's writeup on radio polonium halos in granite.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Sorry, but there is no proof of that. Just their speculation. Prove the air was more acidic. Let them prove anything they say. I don't believe all science is wrong, I just think a lot of them, especially those that study the past, make crap up.

Prove one of these things, it is impossible.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

here's the difference......the bible crowd is using info that is likened to that of ignorant savages...no science...no facts..nothing. zero...zilch.

At least the theories of our most brilliant geologists have things like...math and about a hundred years worth of science and data to come to their conclusion.

The bible says...throw rocks at a chick who might have looked at another man...

you choose ..



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


i thought that if the ice melted the seawater wouldnt rise that much due to displacement or am i unbelievably mistaken (i probably am)



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by russ212
 


I believe that current theory, and I am not even sure if what I've been exposed to is current, is based upon geologic record. Not being an expert I cannot comment upon what is considered fact, accepted theory, or proposed theory here.

But common sense does dictate that if the world were formed by volcanic processes then there would have been a more acidic atmosphere. Even today the air around active volcanos is more acidic.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


I think there is enough information available at this point to safely say that the story of Noah living 950 years is reasonable and should not be discounted at face value. (Genesis 9:29 is where this information comes from).

Likewise, the information about Methuselah living 969 (Genesis 5:27), Jared living 962 years (Genesis 5:20), Adam 930 (Genesis 5:5), Seth 912 years (Genesis 5:8), Cainan 910 years (Genesis 5:14), and Enosh 905 years (Genesis 5:11).

Allow me to attempt to explain scientifically. Although I am not an expert, I gathered this information from experts and I tend to agree with this conclusion to some extent.

Essentially the atmospheric content and environmental conditions of Earth have changed rapidly over time, proven by the Geological Records.

There is a theory that goes like this , that our DNA's expression of it's traits is not at "Optimal Conditions" anymore, and we are getting smaller and living shorter life spans as a result.

Consider the fact that the fossil records indicate that in prehistoric times, all animals and plants were MASSIVE, and lived very long life spans compared to today's specimens.

For instance there is fossil evidence that a mere Dragonfly grew up to the size of a modern car (meganeura), or plants that grew to massive sizes. However we do not find much anything like this anymore.

Now I know it is counter-intuitive, but there is something to this for sure. What made the simple dragonfly which has changed very little over the span of millions of years Shrink to such a small size?

Compare Elephants to Deinotherium. Almost exact same species, yet one is more than twice the size of the modern version.

Under the optimal atmospheric and environmental conditions, Earth life lived longer and was much larger in stature, this is exactly what the geological record shows. And the thing is, nothing today exists in this way and the theory states it is due to the rapidly deteriorating atmospheric conditions of our planet.

According to some information I have come across, prior to the last 'flood' the ozone layer was up to SEVEN times thicker than it is today, and something happened that caused it to diminish drastically. A smaller ozone layer would indicate that we have far less defense against ionizing radiation from space, and would explain why we die so young and do not grow to "optimal" sizes.

Granted, some scientists argue that rather than the Ozone layer, it was a thick layer of Water Vapor, but really that is mere details and it doesn't really matter which chemical it was that formed the protective layer. The point is that layer is now diminished, and that all plants and animals now grow far smaller and live shorter lives as a result.

Some of my information may be off a bit, thats acceptable and expected. However the general gist of the theory remains plausible.

This whole post was merely giving you some logical reasons to NOT discount the old Bible stories (and by extension the Myths and Legends found in all cultures around the globe).

These things do tend to meet up fairly well with the geological and fossil records.

So this adds even more mystery to the OP about the "original piece of rock" supposedly found. You should question it, you should wonder about it. Things are not adding up on one hand, yet on the other hand things are adding up.

We have to weigh the information and see where the scales tip.

So of course I reject the OP's article. The Earth is probably far older than we expect at this point. This is my subjective opinion though, based on my reasonings which I have laid out dutifully throughout this fun thread.


Maybe the Earth is only 6000 years old, but I am really really doubting that at this point. And I can even use the Bible to back up this reasoning as stated on Page 1.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Interesting, this is very close to Magnetic North for at least the last several hundred years.

www.greatdreams.com...

Could it be coincidence?

Here is the southern mag pole, for those interested.

www.greatdreams.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrathchild
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

here's the difference......the bible crowd is using info that is likened to that of ignorant savages...no science...no facts..nothing. zero...zilch.

At least the theories of our most brilliant geologists have things like...math and about a hundred years worth of science and data to come to their conclusion.

The bible says...throw rocks at a chick who might have looked at another man...

you choose ..


I did choose.

I said that the religious groups and the mainstream scientists are both clearly wrong.

I choose door 3.

Which is an amazing mix between the two, in a sense.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
By what I remember the rock and other ground materials are always getting covered up by more dirt and rock that's why you have to dig for fossils and such. So does that mean that this part is less active then other parts of the earth?


(im sure there's a better way to say that but i cant think clearly at the moment)



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Thank you for clarifying this, I thought of the same theory but i didn't have the diction to actually write it down


As you have done, I have also chosen Door 3, a mixture of scientific and biblical knowledge... which makes for interesting theories.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


yeah, I was thinking about that. When the planet that hit Earth and made the moon hit, you'd think it would have liquidfied the original Earth or what was solid and made it molten again.

oh well this thread was interesting until a few posts in when the jesus crispies started piling in



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Funshinez
 
ok i do not believe in radio carbon dating, for it too is off by 1,000 years, but if you go by the a day is a year and a year is a day then you look at the numbers and other book's listing the who be gate who the one gen being 1000, then 1000 times that by 10 there you have 10,000 before Noah, and his life span was 950 years so did Noah live 950 days? No he lived 950 years now we come to the days after Noah and there is and i for get the gen between Noah and Davide the David to the lord and savor and the 12 then the 12 to us is how many years? this i just my view of it.



It, the Earth that is, is possibly billions of years old. All you have is when God first spoke to Man to go on and God proved more was here long before man with the fact that the Earth was a formless void and here first. Since it could be recognized, and it was never stated that the Earth has an age, then you can not prove or disprove your argument in this manner.
I love flat earthers!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Totalstranger
 

Getting awfully hung up one word, aren't we ("original")? How about reading the article.

What's been found is a clear sign that beneath the crust in northern Canada there is a chunk of pristine, undisturbed rock from the time when Earth was nothing but molten rock.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

When the giant collision which created the Moon occurred the Earth had not yet solidified, it was in a "plastic" state. And the collision did cause some reliquification. This occurred about 4.5 billion years ago (the age of the rocks in question). That's the point. It wasn't until after that, that the Earth had a chance to solidify. These are some of the rocks that first solidified on Earth. Molten rock is not rock, it is magma. The radiological "clock" does not start ticking until magma cools and hardens.

It should also be noted that the oldest rocks found on the Moon match this dating quite closely.


[edit on 8/12/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Sorry, but there is no proof of that. Just their speculation. Prove the air was more acidic. Let them prove anything they say. I don't believe all science is wrong, I just think a lot of them, especially those that study the past, make crap up.

Prove one of these things, it is impossible.


The same could be said for religious arguments. You can not prove that Noah, Abraham or Moses, let alone Enoch walked the earth. You have a book that says so. There are books on 30ft tall men with blue oxen too. Also most people can not remember what they ate yesterday, how can these persons from the Bible from lets say your 10,000 yrs ago remember each and every birthday down to the letter. The Bible is full of stuff you don't practice today and the most important fact: Most of what you know today about Biblical numerology was done by people (St Augustine for example) trying to influence those who could not read or write to join their religion. Think they would have wasted their time with real explanations?
Deception surely runs very deep.
(edit to add comment) Oh and if you don't believe me, then do this: Go to seminary school. What they teach there is totally different than what they teach the sheeple, I mean masses.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by DaWhiz]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
One of the big problems in geology has been finding rocks that are from the original formation of the earth because of plate tectonics. Because of this, even moon rocks that were returned after the Apollo missions were older than even the oldest rocks ever found on earth.

I recently posted this discrepancy in a thread and I was corrected by Phage and he is right.

Although moon rocks are hundreds of millions of years older than any rock ever found on earth, we know the earth is older than the moon because of composition of certain moon rocks. Plus the current theory of how the moon was created (from an ancient collision with a mars-sized object scientists call "Theia" and the primordial earth).

I seriously doubt this is a chunk of "the original earth" because at that point the earth was completely molten anyway.

But I do think this is a step in the right direction as far as gauging the true age of the earth. The older the rocks we find, the more accurately we can gauge the earth's age with relation to the age of the solar system in general. Thus-far, most theories regarding the true age of the solar system are based on the oldest rocks ever found (which were from apollo).

Maybe we'll find out the Solar System is even older than we originally thought.

-ChriS



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by russ212
 


If memory serves the ancient atmosphere of earth was far more acidic, hot, and the planet had a much, much higher atmospheric pressure.


You must be pretty old yourself



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join