Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evidence of Early Life Draws Ire from Scientists

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenBrain71
 
What you see is merely an imprint of a supposed "creature" buried in the Earth by God to give invertebrate paleontologists something to do (argue) and possibly screw with their minds (easy enough).

In my estimation as vertebrate paleontology was my field in an earlier life, this "imprint" is merely a single Bigfoot right foot imprint and totally unrelated to anything related to invertebrate paleontology..




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
My goodness, 100 million years!

Life on land emerging 1 billion years ago fine, but 1.1 billion? Havin' a laugh!



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Thank you so much! So interesting, I love jellyfish, so simplistically beautiful.
Who knew some of their ancestors were land dwellers. ( I know i'm
being childish, but am I the only one that giggled at Dickinsonia?)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Scientists have a history of rejecting any ground shaking information. Many discoveries have been delayed for decades because of this.

It will sort itself out in a few years.


Yep, that's how science progresses.
People take a new discovery with a pinch of salt until it's proven beyond all doubt.

I would much rather that happens then people just believing the first thing they see (or read).



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by elfrog
reply to post by GoldenBrain71
 
What you see is merely an imprint of a supposed "creature" buried in the Earth by God to give invertebrate paleontologists something to do (argue) and possibly screw with their minds (easy enough).

In my estimation as vertebrate paleontology was my field in an earlier life, this "imprint" is merely a single Bigfoot right foot imprint and totally unrelated to anything related to invertebrate paleontology..





I'm guessing you stopped being an invertebrate paleontologist because you weren't very good at it
(by the way is that a paleontolgost who has no back-bone...) ?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Helmet
I have a small problem with this. If that fossil is at least 100 million years old. Why hasn't it turned into oil? In fact, no-one has ever found a fossil in the process of turning into oil. Why is that I wonder?



Me thinks you already know the answer to that.

Its a shame there isn't a great deal more discussion of abiotic oil. It seems to me that it is no less a reasonable conclusion than the fossil explanation. In fact, it could be seen to involve less assumptions than fossilization and therefore conform to Occums Razor.

On topic: we're still finding completely new species of critters alive and well, like this weeks announcement of a new to science primate. It as often been said that we know less about the ocean depths than we do the moon.

How can we possibly think we know all there is to know about early life on this planet?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I think I know why scientists get all upset when new information comes out that contradicts what's already believed...

They spend so much money on their stupid doctorate degrees learning what is now "crap science"


"Hell no I'm not happy about that! I slaved away and spent half a million dollars on my degree and find out half of what I was taught is complete garbage!?"

Yeah, I'd be upset too.


I'm sure YOU would be upset.
However the vast majority of scientists use what they have been taught as a basis for learning more.
Not as a be-all and end-all.
Learning doesn't just finish when you've completed your university education.
Science continually changes, that's what's great about it.

Other things remain rooted in historical hearsay and that's not healthy.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Great find! Do you think this throws carbon dating out the window?


Carbon based dating would not have been used as

*Its only good back about 55,000 years
*You need 'carbon'. Fossils are merely imprints left within rock. (This is also why you will not find too many fossils turning into oil as one poster has suggested).

Isotope dating would have been used. And as far as I can read there is nothing in this article that casts doubt regarding the dating methods used
edit on 20/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Why would scientists have "ire" or be "up in arms"? This isn't a religion, right? Where you can be mad about being wrong because it proves your perspective of reality to be false, right? Scientists are SUPPOSED to be objective and neutral when discovering things about reality, but now it seems to just be another religion.






By the way, when I use the word "religion" I'm obviously not talking about mythological beliefs, but rather a dogmatic way of living life where you have such an attachment that when it is proven false you are "disturbed".





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join