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.

 

The missing link, when it comes to evolution of life (Expanding earth)

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
here is a video for the story he talks about youtu.be...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Section69
 


Brilliant video, Thanks for sharing. I think this subject
is going to be around for awhile. A lot of details come
together nicely . The ancient, faster spinning,smaller Earth
has large animals because of less gravity.
How would we know ? Last great measurements of Earth
were done arguably by the Egyptians in 2500 BC,
and fully accepted Earth measurements in 1840ish AD
by French mathemeticians.
I wonder how fast the sunrise and set when Earth was
at it's smallest with animal life. Think about how surreal
that would be to have the sun rise and set every say, 4 hours?
I know this Expanind Earth theory is an odd theory,
but it's really not that crazy.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
it's all evolutionary propaganda. there's no facts to back up their claims, like the fish walking on land.

i remember watching one that was evolution for dummies or for kids, and it had a cartoon fish jumping out of the ocean and turning into a lizard, then the lizard turned into a dinosaur, then the dinosaur turned into a bird, and some of the birds turned into mammals and so on.

it was ridiculous. you have to be retarded to believe animals are shape shifting into entirely new species to fit into the theory of evolution. because that's the only way they can make it make "sense".

it was a cluster f-ck of science fiction.

God said He created the universe and everything in it. that makes more sense than shape shifting organisms who can jump out oceans and magically breath air without any lungs.

oh wait, some didn't die instantly in 30 seconds but spontaneously developed lungs and a trachea and started breathing.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I am at work and do not have time to write down full explanations.

But, yes (according to main stream science), there was a big bang, and all that material flung out across the known universe. Now the gravity caused this gas (and dust) to fall into itself very tightly, which became very hot, voila, one sun. The left over gas and dust orbiting the newly formed sun all came together and created the planets we all know and love.

How you are getting creationism from what I am saying is beyond me.


Ohh the big bang. Hey where did the material that blew up in the big bang come from? Where was it? Where was the material that blew up into the universe?

Why is the big bang considered to be anything other than a fairy tale? It doesn't explain anything.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by Section69
 


Brilliant video, Thanks for sharing. I think this subject
is going to be around for awhile. A lot of details come
together nicely . The ancient, faster spinning,smaller Earth
has large animals because of less gravity.
How would we know ? Last great measurements of Earth
were done arguably by the Egyptians in 2500 BC,
and fully accepted Earth measurements in 1840ish AD
by French mathemeticians.
I wonder how fast the sunrise and set when Earth was
at it's smallest with animal life. Think about how surreal
that would be to have the sun rise and set every say, 4 hours?
I know this Expanind Earth theory is an odd theory,
but it's really not that crazy.


The expando earth theory suggests that every 12k years or so the sun unwinds it's magnetic blanket and shoots a powerful energy burst towards the earth. In a moment the energy hits the core of the earth where matter is CREATED and the earth expands. On the crust there is massive trauma.. gravity changes.. time changes.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Dude its easy I got it all figured out: The Annunaki alien race came from space millions of years ago planting the seed (as the holy father) into earth (the mother earth). We humans have evolved from that seed. (as the fathers children). Over the course of evolution human kind was geneticly modificated (on 21.12.2012 for the fifth time) to perfection. Why else did we loose our fur in the midst of the ice age, just to put fur back on?? We are turning more and more into our "father,fathers,god,gods". They are so highly evolved that they dont need fur or hair cause the practicly live in space their whole existance, creating civilisations on valuable planets!



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 



Great proposal ! Everything in nature grows,
including the Sun, but not the Earth?
Ha! It's an amazing thing to contemplate!
Like I said, our memory, empirically, is only 12,000 years old.
So how would we know for sure what happens in the time scale
of the Earth. In other words to a dog everyday is like a week .
We live about 7 times longer. We live about 75 years,
& the Earth is over 4,500,000,000 years old.
It could be quite the dynamic Entity.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


What??? The Earth formed from material left over in the accretion disc orbiting the sun, after cooling down it was bombarded by comets which left water (as well as gases from volcanoes). As this cooled down and froze at the poles, it left a lot of land. Then the first single celled organisms (prokaryotes) sprang from some amino acids.

The Earth is not physically expanding


Well, you seem to be well versed in the myth, but there isn't a scintilla of scientific evidence to support accretion theory. If it worked, we would not have an asteroid belt, and the outer planets would not have rings.

There is also no evidence that comets contain any appreciable amounts of water. In fact, all the recent expeditions to comets show hot dry rocks at the nucleus. No water or ice, other than what accumulates in the tail as it passes through the solar system.

There is also no evidence that life "sprang" from organic materials. In fact, even such heavy weights a Crick disputes the idea that life just randomly evolved, and the mathematical numbers are astronomical against, if there is even a chance that random chemical reactions could even begin the process.

In short, you don't have a clue about real science, but you are obviously a good sheep.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Unless you wanna go the creationist way, and say the sun spew the earth out ... I'll ask where the sun came from ... and we'll always end up with the same stupid anomalies, that somewhere there was a magnetic bubble that collected into an object ... and so began creation.



I consider myself a creationist. I don'r know of this theory of the sun giving birth to the Earth. I believe the Earth was created first and the sun moon and stars were created on the 4th day.

I expect ridicule on this but the evolution is trying to use natural laws to explain the supernatural. In fact the author of this thread shows one of the fundamental problems of evolution. In evolutionary theory what drives the change? Why would the single cell organism evolve past that point? Think about it in the beginning not even "survival of the fittest" applies. Even with all our technology we aren't capable of manipulating DNA on the level that evolutionary theory claims occurs naturally. If we don't have the ability to manipulate the human genome to transform me from a fat guy to a muscular ripped guy with 6 pack abs artificially then how could my progeny evolve naturally?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stillwind

Well, you seem to be well versed in the myth, but there isn't a scintilla of scientific evidence to support accretion theory. If it worked, we would not have an asteroid belt, and the outer planets would not have rings.

The asteroid belt and rings are left over material from this process.



There is also no evidence that comets contain any appreciable amounts of water. In fact, all the recent expeditions to comets show hot dry rocks at the nucleus. No water or ice, other than what accumulates in the tail as it passes through the solar system.

Source please, also I did mention that some of Earths water came from volcanic gases, guess you didn't read.



There is also no evidence that life "sprang" from organic materials.

Now you're just being silly.



In short, you don't have a clue about real science, but you are obviously a good sheep.

Baaaaaaaaa!



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Ohh the big bang. Hey where did the material that blew up in the big bang come from? Where was it? Where was the material that blew up into the universe?

Why is the big bang considered to be anything other than a fairy tale? It doesn't explain anything.


At the end of the day, a lack of an explanation doesn't mean no explanation.

I know the popular theory has something to do with energy converting to matter in a false vacuum (or something).

Or maybe there was a higher power at work.

One day we may just find out.

EDIT: I would like to point out by the way, that I do believe in God, I don't believe the human conciousness is just a fluke of evolution, but I also believe in science, and evolution, I believe the two of them can go hand in hand.

But I prefer to try and leave religion out of discussions, as not everyone has faith and can understand why the two can work together.
edit on 3/1/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZakOlongapo
...Earth is expanding! want proof? so, everybody know that animals, plants, insect atc. was in prehistoric time much larger... why? cos gravity was smaller! why? cos Earth was smaller planet that time and small object have small gravity ...

want more proof? ok. distance between (s,n)america and europe(africa) is every year a bit bigger... it is the same also between asia and (s,n) america... forget Pangaea theory, cos it not include gravity changes *
here is old but nice video...

www.youtube.com...



Wait, what? Did earth gain matter from then to now? If not, the gravity would have been higher!

Basically, the gravitational force follows 1/r², meaning that if you take the same mass and a smaller planet then the gravity on its surface will be higher.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by rwfresh
 



Great proposal ! Everything in nature grows,
including the Sun, but not the Earth?
Ha! It's an amazing thing to contemplate!
Like I said, our memory, empirically, is only 12,000 years old.
So how would we know for sure what happens in the time scale
of the Earth. In other words to a dog everyday is like a week .
We live about 7 times longer. We live about 75 years,
& the Earth is over 4,500,000,000 years old.
It could be quite the dynamic Entity.


In reality, we know ... but we ignore the facts. Basically because the human race is still a child, that needs a father figure. Although we have more or less moved away from the "God" part, yet only partially ... the focus of religion, is of course, that we need a patre, a father figure ... and God is this father, that always holds us in his arms. It's this need for "security" and need for a static universe ...

If we go back a thousand years, we find that enormous changes took place. Of course in the books, we're just told that we needed to calculate the day, because the other calendars were bogus. Really? people had lived by those calendars for centuries, or even thousands of years ... suddenly, over a few years, it was suddenly off so much, that every day was off ... but of course, the idea was that it was accumulated over thousands off years, we just merely noticed it .... then.

Of course not, the size of the planet changed, and the day varied ... obviously. We just can't cope with the idea of it ... that is why, we come up with the idea of Big Bang ... it's just creationism, under a "scientific cloak".

Everything grows ... well, transforms really ... the sun burns out, and where does the energy go? earth and the other planet collects it ... in science energy and matter are the same, it's called theory of relativity ... but when people talk about a growing earth because of collection of energy ... people suddenly say "no no".

It's our inner need for a mommy and daddy, that was still left behind when we grew up ... and instead of mom and dad, we became the children of God, and the padre took care of us.

I wonder when the human race, will reallly .... grow up.

edit on 3/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Wait, what? Did earth gain matter from then to now? If not, the gravity would have been higher!

Basically, the gravitational force follows 1/r², meaning that if you take the same mass and a smaller planet then the gravity on its surface will be higher.



Sorry, but that isn't true ... a totally unsound view of it ...

First of all, earth growin does not need added mass ... and neither does increasing gravity. Your just holding on to straws.

The sun is losing mass and energy, and is it does it will cool ... when cooling it will change ... and, it will enlarge to such a size, that it will engulf the earth. This, we know.

Inside the earth is plasma ... magma is magnetised plasma ... but in reality, the earth core is also plasma, because the earth itself is a huge plasma ball. If you buy a plasma ball in a toy store and watch it, you will see amazing similarities with the earths atmosphere ... hardly a coincidence.

But gravity is not just a function of mass, but also a function of radius ... meaning that the thicker the mantle ... the less the gravity ... assuming a constant mass at the center. You can also watch this, through observing volcanic eruptions ... as these eruptions take place, there is an increase in gravity at that place, and a decrease when the magma leaves the chambers below. A very solid evidence, that gravity is a function of how close we are to the magma below ... so, gravity can change, without addition of mass ... with the mantle getting thinner ... which we very well know ... it has.

In your exampel of radius, you assume that all the mass is in a single point ... and this point stays the same size with increasing radius ... which of course, is a wrong approach. We are saying, that it is the center of the earth ... it's plasmatic core, and it's magnetized plasma ... that has increased in volume, and that it is the mantle ... that has thinned ... which means, that r has in reality, in your function ... decreased.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
yeah, maybe there weren't even oceans back 3.5 billion years ago...only puddles even lakes


and fish going onto land was a necessity to survive, lay eggs, or even excape predators


your idea would fit with the old notion that the pre-flood sky was a dense canopy of water
and the oceans only came about after the rains fell big time & remained 99% in the sea floors and only 1% recycling into the sky or icesheets on a daily basis...

by that time, very few fish would need to be land walkers too, thats why they are a rarity today versus pretty common place millions of years ago.


the decompressing earth might had played a part in that evolutionary path...but only if the other factors were pretty much like laid out above...


can you elaborate on other items of such a world, that had little ground water and caused fish to walk on dry land ---- or even to migrate from one water Oasis to another

thanks
edit on 3-1-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Wait, what? Did earth gain matter from then to now? If not, the gravity would have been higher!

Basically, the gravitational force follows 1/r², meaning that if you take the same mass and a smaller planet then the gravity on its surface will be higher.



Sorry, but that isn't true ... a totally unsound view of it ...
Only in your mind, my friend..



First of all, earth growin does not need added mass ... and neither does increasing gravity. Your just holding on to straws.
Not proven from your side


The sun is losing mass and energy, and is it does it will cool ... when cooling it will change ... and, it will enlarge to such a size, that it will engulf the earth. This, we know.

True


Inside the earth is plasma ... magma is magnetised plasma ... but in reality, the earth core is also plasma, because the earth itself is a huge plasma ball. If you buy a plasma ball in a toy store and watch it, you will see amazing similarities with the earths atmosphere ... hardly a coincidence.

Magma is not magnetised plasma. How do you explain lava? How did plasma, which is intrinsiquily a homogenous mass of molecules, return to specific mixes of molten granite, bauxite or others (sorry, I'm not an expert on geologics, I just assumed the usual parts of any lava coming from some vulcano)? This is inplausible.


But gravity is not just a function of mass, but also a function of radius ... meaning that the thicker the mantle ... the less the gravity
True, as I said in my posting above.

... assuming a constant mass at the center. You can also watch this, through observing volcanic eruptions ... as these eruptions take place, there is an increase in gravity at that place, and a decrease when the magma leaves the chambers below.
Sure? Any sources for this? As far as I understand vulcanism, there is indeed a magmatic volume below the caldera, stored in a bubble - which usually gets more filled until the internal pressure is high enough to break the barrage of solidified magma plugging the caldera. I don't see how such a small stream of matter should change gravity on a measurable scale.


A very solid evidence, that gravity is a function of how close we are to the magma below ... so, gravity can change, without addition of mass ... with the mantle getting thinner ... which we very well know ... it has.
The mantle getting thinner? Sources? Gravity is a function of masses and distances. If you have more mass in closer distance, you will experience a higher force pulling you towards that mass. But HOW is magma different from the mantles matter? It is and can only be molten stones and other materials, but there is no physical way we could get a cloud of plasma. Therefore there is no relevant difference in gravity, if or if not magma is replacing the mantles matter.


In your exampel of radius, you assume that all the mass is in a single point ... and this point stays the same size with increasing radius
A point is a point, it has no size, mathematically spoken.


... which of course, is a wrong approach. We are saying, that it is the center of the earth ... it's plasmatic core, and it's magnetized plasma ... that has increased in volume, and that it is the mantle ... that has thinned ... which means, that r has in reality, in your function ... decreased.

Okay, let us look at your statement: the core expands, the mantle has thinned. This would mean that the earth would have expanded, right? Lets do this thought-experiment to show your error.
Okay, the earth expanded - what did its diameter? It grew larger. What is r - it is the radius, equal to half of the diameter - so the radius has grown, too. Therefore in the beginning r was smaller, implying that gravity was higher..


I generally fail to see how you explain the plasma in earths core - plasma itself is a gasous state consiting of ionizised particles. To stay ionizised, these particles have to have VERY high energy, much higher than the meager 5.000-6.000 degress centigrade in earths core. If earths core would be hotter, there would be different phenomena to the mantle, so this would be implausible and is therefore impossible.

There is no way for plasma to exist in earths core. The temperatures, the high pressures, the messured seismic waves, everything speaks against that theory of yours.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Not proven from your side



Proof? that is the easy part.

Have you ever seen lava? when the magma inside the earth, rises to the surface it takes with it stuff from the mantle and this is called lava. When the lava reaches the surface, something very important happens ... the lavea is filled with microscopic holes ... because the plasmatic stuff, becomes gas and goes into the atmosphere.

However, inside the earth ... the magma is not in a a "gaseous" state, it is in a much denser state, far denser than the mantle ... meaning, that the magma must "expand".

You are just ignoring the obvious ... first you ignore the obvious of the continents connecting. Then you ignore the obvious of the magma reaching gaseous state ... cooling magma will expand. Dense plasma, that cools ... will expand. This is an obvious truth ...

You are denying facts ...



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

your idea would fit with the old notion that the pre-flood sky was a dense canopy of water
and the oceans only came about after the rains fell big time & remained 99% in the sea floors and only 1% recycling into the sky or icesheets on a daily basis...



This part fits many scenarios, but only one scenario makes berth for evolution ... what you are stating is "creationism".

Why should a fish, want to walk onto land? preposterous really ... because are we seeing fish walking onto land now? no.

All these theories, from Big Bang to others fail because they are stating scientific methods ... while their model of science does not have a recurring model. Anything in nature, is a reoccurring event ... if it happened once, it can and will happen again. In fact, within the universe it is a constantly occuring incident.

So, the idea that fish walked onto land to escape their predators is silly because we aren't seeing them wanting to walk onto land today ... nor any evolutionary steps thereto. Thus, we can safely ignore this part of the puzzle as a general entity ... as well as Noha's flood.

However, an expanding earth that is a water planet ... where there is starting an underwater volcanic activity that gives the sparkle of life. Life evolves and the single cell organisms sprout in the oceans ... life here, is not reacting to behavioral dictations. But it is adapting to environmental changes ... thus, it is not fish walking onto land, but rather the fish finding itself on more and more shallow waters, as time passes. And in time, only some parts of the eggs hatched, those that could in shallow waters ... and these eggs, contained different specimens that would have died in the deep oceans, while surviving in the shallow ones ... evolution.

The algie, that grow in the oceans ... more and more, and is changing into landformed trees ... reaching up, to grasp the sun, out of the shallow waters. The birth of the rain forrest.

Here is another piece in the puzzle ... why did birds evolve? Why would a bird evolve, to fly from it's predators? hardly ... evolution does not concider any of your desires, dreams or needs. You are not going to give birth to a jellyfish, so it can slip away from the cops in a slippery sense ... but, the plasmatic body of the earth and it's changes, can trigger genetic changes ... and the changes in environment, can change the altered species chances of survival ... it's called evolution.

The bird is obviously the link between mammals and reptiles, shallow water environment with trees ... where the egg, starts hatching in a dry environment. And the whale, is the mammal that started to exist in shallow waters, but could reach the deeper oceans, that started to exist as the earths cracks became bigger. Like the rift in africa, that expected to split africa in time.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Have you watched any of the David Wilcock videos on youtube? I saw them the other day and David claims that there are waves of cosmic energy that supercharges the DNA and the mutations happen over a short peroid. There were 4 videos each about an hour long. I found it interesting and plausible......
Here is a link to the first one. I don't remember if he spoke about the dna change in the first video or the second one. There was a lot of information to digest in one visit.

David Wilcock 2012



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join