Screw 300 million years old! Who built it?

reply to post by cerebralassassins


Not sure what to make of the first part. What are you implying?


As for the deep web thing it was meant tongue in cheek. Surfing without the Google spy is much better.


Raist

reply to post by cerebralassassins


I am not sure why you think I would disagree with this pointy all government propaganda science news lies. I just take the fossil stuff to heart as I want education about them and not lies. Read my signature or check out my fossil thread. It is small at the moment but will be enlarged as cooler weather comes and I get to prepping.

Raist

There have been many many cycles of humans, some space age, (the pyramids on mars), though not necessarily in our density, for we've fallen, and humans have had their lives shortened, possibly natural consequence to harm, greed and wars or nuclear, or natural disaster including radiation. Lemuria was several million years ago, coinciding with Mars civilization, if not longer.

There were cycles before that.

We don't seem to learn and become loving and therefore reach a higher level, some have been higher than this, but it seems not to get far, not harming others, equality, no slaves. No homelessness.

reply to post by Signals

Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950’s. He calculated the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), and assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breathe CO2 and animals eat plants.

Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy produces radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays into normal, stable carbon 12. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 30,000 years old.

Mind you, a Creationist-derived site, but this is how the stuff works, and it was the first site Google popped up on my search.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate. If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying out simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. This would mean the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The argument for the young-earthers over C-14 shouldn't be about how old C-14 dates, but how much C-14 can the Earth hold?

But still, to assume that you have x amount of C-14 in the past is a pretty darn huge assumption.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Maybe more like a ringed nail?

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
reply to post by cerebralassassins

 

yep, in 1967, Dallas Love field concrete ramp was tested to be 10,000 years old

I was told that carbon dating anything more than 1,000 years old was useless, and that carbon dating something 500 years old was still not a very accurate method.

I don't trust it.


I've been leaning toward the theory that we are not the first advanced civilization to live on this planet.

reply to post by cerebralassassins


I love ooparts and I have the same questions. I get frustrated when mainstream science ignores these things because it makes them uncomfortable and threatens current theory and assumptions. Who built it?! Indeed, who the hell did build it?

Sometimes I wonder if the earth has not folded over upon itself and made millions of years of history just disappear. And to this day I still lament the burning of the great library of Alexandria. My God, what knowledge on the ancient ancients was lost...

reply to post by pajoly


Sometimes we get an idea of what is lost, by looking at other texts that quote a book, basically the way we do: In x person's book, the y title, they stated this, but here's some reasons why I disagree with it.

reply to post by cerebralassassins


The photo is obviously a crinoid. I was pleased to see someone else point out what it was early in the thread.

There are lots of ridiculous claims such as the the sandal print squishing a trilobite claim. The liar that posted that claimed that he had a better photo in which the stitching on the sandal was visible. I asked if he would send it and the liar sent the same photo to me. The liar was a creationist.

Here we have someone purportedly from Russia telling a lie about a crinoid. So what? Liars such as that are a dime a dozen especially when they are creations. Is this just another YEC lie?

reply to post by Unity_99

There have been many many cycles of humans, some space age,...

Just laughable.

Show me one piece of ancient civilization that looks modern.

Carbon dating is almost like a guess after 5000 or 10 000 years, so this object would have at least have to be 10 thousand plus years. I believe in life exsisting everywhere in the universe, but i do believe that these objects could possible be from an ancient civilization, i don't think our ancestors were all sticks and stones.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Unity_99

 

There have been many many cycles of humans, some space age,...

Just laughable.

Show me one piece of ancient civilization that looks modern.

That is a good one, if you were to leave this planet alone without any humans on it for 10 thousand years, it would make us look like primates, nothing would be left. maybe someone will find a baseball bat and write text books about the greatest discovery of the first "ancient" weapon found.

This planet will eat a city in a 100 years, 500 years you will only see green hills. How can someone bring you evidence, when its all been destroyed (by humans and nature), or it has been hidden away ( like the pyramids in china)

Bring me proof that shows absolutley un deniable evidence that our ancestors from a million years ago we apes?
Bring me 100% proof of what an actual dinosaur looks like and behaves like?

What people don't notice, about theories on evolution, or dating of Homo Sapiens in the archaeological field, is that if this world is millions of years old, the bone structure of H. Sapiens has not changed for 100K years. Theoretically, if they are the same for 100K, and we only have proof of real civilization for the past 30K, why in the world didn't they do it before then, since we are the same creatures, today, that they were then?

That's rarely, if ever, addressed.

reply to post by Raist


You beat me to it

Glad I breezed through the thread first.

Originally posted by XeroOne
Perhaps the screw isn't embedded in anything. The 'rock' itself could have been a man-made object that became fossilised, and the screw was part of it.
Seriously flawed dating techniques is the most likely explanation, though. How many people have ever questioned the supposed infallibility of carbon dating?

edit on 11-8-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)

I don't think anyone claimed it was infallible. In the shroud of Turin study they said carbon dating couldn't
be confirmed as viable evidence as there was a fire in the priary that housed it, sometime about 1500, and smoke, being mostly made of carbon would've changed the mollecture structure of the cloth and made
any carbon dating methods pointless.

reply to post by DelegateZero88


Sorry, mollecular. My bad

reply to post by DelegateZero88


Sorry, mollecular. My bad

And why does it always seem that it's just Russian scientists that are the ONLY ones having the "good fortune" of finding these kind of "artifacts" and reporting on them ?
Never American or British or French or German or etc, etc, etc ... just the Rusians. Tabloid scientific reporting at it's worst !

reply to post by tauristercus


It could be because they aren't held as accountable, but more accountable societies have dredged up sceintific hoaxes, before.

More likely, they're not as invested in the assumptions of the USA and European scientific field.

reply to post by XaniMatriX

That is a good one, if you were to leave this planet alone without any humans on it for 10 thousand years, it would make us look like primates, nothing would be left. maybe someone will find a baseball bat and write text books about the greatest discovery of the first "ancient" weapon found.

This planet will eat a city in a 100 years, 500 years you will only see green hills. How can someone bring you evidence, when its all been destroyed (by humans and nature), or it has been hidden away ( like the pyramids in china)

Bring me proof that shows absolutley un deniable evidence that our ancestors from a million years ago we apes?
Bring me 100% proof of what an actual dinosaur looks like and behaves like?

Your claim that objects are destroyed so quickly is laughable. The pyramids at Giza are over 4000 years old and easily found. The pyramids of Saqqara are older. Beautifully crafted paleolithic stone tools are older and well documented.

What we do not find is ancient examples of glass, ceramics, plastics, metals, etc. showing an advanced ancient civilization.

Who were our ancestors? They were primates. The evidence is well documented. What isn't so clear is the definitive relationship between all of these species.

What do dinosaurs have to do with anything? Nothing.