It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Come Clean

Do seismic vibrations refract when they go through God? That's how scientists know what the inside of the Earth is like.

I don't know what seismic vibrations do. I don't know what causes them either. But because someone said it doesn't make it so. I know you believe what scientist say. I know they don't have video of this iron core they speak of. I know every time they prove something some other scientist comes along and disprove them.

Bottom line, you take it on FAITH that mantel exist. You take it on faith that this iron core exist. Bottom line, you have never seen either have you?

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Come Clean
Unless you're saying scientist have the mental capacity of a monkey. Even a monkey knows what hot and cold is. That's why birds migrate every winter.

Birds migrate because monkeys know what hot and cold is?

No, debunkers migrate because they need scientist to tell them what hot and cold is.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by Come Clean

Debunker? It seems that you're the one trying to debunk the article in the OP.

But I don't migrate. I live in a place where it doesn't get too hot or too cold.

[edit on 8/13/2010 by Phage]

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by Phage

Come on Phage! Answer this one question please.

Have you ever laid eyes on this iron core we are suppose to have here on Earth? If not, then why do you claim IT exist but GOD doesn't? No scientist can prove a negative. Neither God nor Iron Core has ever been seen phage? Scientist say the core exist but religious folks say God exist. You don't believe one because it disproves the other.

Science and Religion are not that far apart Phage. And you know this! Both require a certian amount of faith. Science said the Earth was flat. Science said the Sun revolved around the Earth. Science said black folk were 3/5th's human. Right there your science admitted aliens exist.

3/5th's as compared to what Phage? You believe in science right? Are black folk 3/5th's human? That's what the constitution says Phage. Were they wrong or right phage?

Your science has been wrong countless times. Religion has never been wrong.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:45 PM
Phage, did you know I invented time travel?

Here's how I did it.

On 12 January 2007 the wind was blowing South South East at 5.4 knots. I stood on one foot, then drank a mai tai. During this time, a eagle flew over my house and dropped a mouse. This mouse had a genetic defect which turned my mai tai into a time machine. However, the mai tai wasn't a mai tai actually. I didn't use the right amount of mixture. I can't remember the mixture but it was followed per instructions from a website. A website in which I can't remember.

I traveled 3000 years into the future.

Now, prove I am wrong scientifically.

That's what scientist do folks! It's all junk designed to prove God doesn't exist.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:09 PM
I started reading this thread and got lost in the argueing over the age of the earth.
To keep from derailing this thread I started another titled " Science and Biblical Creation".
I as a Christian believe the earth is far older than 10000 years and I explain it in the following thread.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by Come Clean

Science said the world was round (look up Eratosthenes). You seem to think it is too. Why? Isn't it "just a theory"? You can't see that it's round, can you?

Galileo was tried and convicted by the Church because his science said the Earth revolves around the Sun and that conflicted with the religious views. You seem to think it does too. Why? Isn't it "just a theory"? You can't see the Earth moving around the Sun, can you?

The Constitution does not (and did not) say that blacks are not fully human.

[edit on 8/13/2010 by Phage]

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Just the wording of this doesn't make any sense.

The entire Earth is the original Earth, duh.

Well, minus a few meteorites, but thats totally negligible at like .0000001%.

Cmon' people!

I think they mean land mass that hasn't been "refreshed" by plate tectonics and volcanoes, or eroded away by water and wind.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:43 PM
This is stupid.

I hate to break it to scientists but the "original earth" is still here and has been all along.

It's not like someone hocked the "original" on some cosmic e-bay and replaced it with a cheap knock-off. It's all "still here".

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Come Clean
That's what scientist do folks! It's all junk designed to prove God doesn't exist.

Why do bible thumpers always think backwards?

Nobody needs to "prove" God doesn't exist until there some shred of evidence that he/she/it does. End of story.

Way to go off topic though. :shk:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:31 PM
Dr Michio Kaku on the Bible and Scientific Evidence of Geological Time

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by SilentStigma
Id love to be able to grab a chunk of that rock. Set it on my coffee table or something then when someone asks why is there a rock there, Simply reply with because its a 60 million year old rock! it was here first.

The lava rock it was found in, was 60 million years old, not the magma itself.

The rock they are talking about is 4.5 billion years old! The earth is around 4.5 billion years old!

We are late comers in to this universe. The universe is about 15 billion years old and the earth was created about 5 billion years ago... So 2/3rds of time has paste before the earth has even got here. That is a lot of time!

Originally posted by dbloch7986
This is interesting but I'm not sure what would be different from today's magma and original magma. It seems like they would be the same for the most part. But then again I'm not a geologist either,

There is large amount of the isotopes helium-3 relative to helium-4. There is also an very old lead-isotope signature.

This wouldn't be present in todays magma, which has reached the surface as it would have decayed in to more stable forms.

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by SilentStigma

I don't trust scientist as far as I can throw them. They have doctored evidence too much, and they jump to conclusions constantly. I don' put to much faith in their statements, and I recommend others don't as well.

I know it is hard to break that training, but try.

This quote I think is the funniest I have ever heard!

I don't trust scientists as far as I can throw them

That is the good thing about science. If you are half way intelligent, you don't have to trust them, like you do religion. Science is repeatable and you can verify it for yourself..

I don' put to much faith in their statements,

You don't have to use faith in science. That is the good thing about it!!

I personally think you should stick to giving religious advice... not scientific advice

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The scientists are being totally misleading though.

A long time ago, Earth could have been just like it is today, and a massive meteorite could have crashed into the Earth and destroyed the entire crust causing it to liquefy into molten lava planet-wide.

This process could have happened more than once as well.

There is pretty much no way to know for sure.

They are not being "misleading" ... go learn the science behind it.

The age of rocks is usually determined by radioactive (or radiometric) dating. Some elements are radioactive and gradually convert from one isotope to another. For example, uranium 238 (238U) will gradually convert to lead (206Pb). It will do this at a constant rate which we can measure.

They are using the isotope of helium and lead to determine this.

What does that mean in layman's terms??

Unstable elements will decay over time. This can be measured. They don't exist naturally.

So they found some isotopes of helium/lead that should have decayed, but they haven't. Scientists already know the decay rates of most elements and that can help determine the age.

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.

Also feel free to study Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Xitharus (probably spelled the last one wrong) All of these guys predate noah and have very similar stories.

post by muzzleflash[/url]
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.

How could the earth be older then the known universe??
Can somone explain?

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:04 AM

Originally posted by muzzleflash

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.

This idea is really flawed and can be explained by easier means.

I have studied noah in depth and found many names for him. If your thought is correct and there was a world wide flood, then there should be a noah story in meso america, and there isn't

There is the story of Queztacoatl, but that isn't a carbon copy for noah.

Also name one spot on earth where it hasnt flooded. Remember the earth was molten at a point, but at another point it was all ice and at another point it was all water.

It could clearly flood in any place on earth, which could result in a flood story. The key for the story of noah, would be to find the exact myth on all parts of the world, but you don't.

On top of this, you would then have to prove, that people were not moving around trading myths and other myths like the sumerian and babylonian ones, were not traded or stolen due to war and fighting and occupation of anothers land.

Its a little more difficult to prove, then you allude to.

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. [/I think you need to take a science class

I don't think you realize how much time and effort it takes to discover these types of things and how much evidence there is.

I think you need to take a science class

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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).

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.

I'm not sure where you heard this theory, but this goes against everything I have heard. Yes we are smaller, but that is because there was just recently an ice age and some creatures went instinct!

After all these mass deaths, there is a time of growth. We are in that period. All life if given the opportunity, will grow larger again eventually.

It has evolutionary advantages to being large.

Now the problem you have is this. It was alleged that Noah was over 900 years old. If there was more oxygen in the atmosphere at that time, what does that have to do with AGE? That doesn't effect the age of a creature, but only the size. If a creature is large it may live longer, but what are you trying to say??? That noah was 50 feet tall?

So I don't really see your argument as anything that can hold up to debate

[edit on 14-8-2010 by ghpink]

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by bekod

Carbon dating is not the right method to date rocks older then 10,000. They use a different method for rocks in the millions of years. You really need to read a text book on least about the different methods they use. The carbon dating argument not able to date rocks millions of years ago is lame and makes you look uneducated. The creation story is just a religious belief from narrow sects in Christianity. I laugh when a young earth creationist use the carbon dating as proof that evolution is not true.

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in