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 simple answer is that the earth is flat, and what is here now, was here in the beginning. Not likely.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye
The areas adjacent to this area have good soil depth, what you would expect to find. No real old growth woods in this area, but areas next to it do. I am taking into consideration old logging as well.
Do you not think that the simple explanation for this is the the soil has dropped away down that near sheer drop underneath it due to:gravity?
The results of this new study dramatically impact understanding of the rate at which concretions form. “Until now, the formation of spherical carbonate concretions was thought to take hundreds of thousands to millions of years,” co-author Koshi Yamamoto says. “However, our results show that concretions grow at a very fast rate over several months to several years.” This rapid sealing mechanism could explain why some concretions contain well-preserved fossils of soft tissues that are rarely fossilized under other conditions.
The team evaluated concretions in Japan, England and New Zealand. Not all concretions contain fossils; small versions, dubbed “blueberries” by JPL scientists, have been found on Mars.
Such a radical revision in formation rates, “at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales,” is bound to cause a stir among geologists who have assumed that concretions take up to a million years to form.
I can hear the screams now, how dare you go against "settled Science"! "Everyone Knows".......... bla bla bla....
The key take away from the above is "Assume". Geologist, for one reason or another are not allowed to consider "Other" geology from other planets contaminating our own plane
From the original source materials.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: All Seeing Eye
That website is not legitimate. It's strictly a promotion of creationism and it's purpose is to attack evolution, for the most part.
The estimated growth rates are at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales of concretion formation27,28.
Researchers at Nagoya University have analyzed dozens of concretions from three sites across Japan, England and New Zealand. Studying the chemical composition in a transect from the outer layers of a concretion towards the surrounding rocks, the researchers were able to crack some of the open questions. The chemical composition shows also that indeed the fossils play a role in the origin of the concretions. The element calcium, cementing smaller sedimentary particles together and forming the hard, compact matter, comes from the decaying organic remains.
More surprising were the results of the growth rates. Concretions were thought to take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form. However, they instead apparently grow at a very fast rate over just several months to several years. This new observation could also explain why the fossils found inside the concretions are so well preserved.
If I'm not mistaken your the one who stated if they re-entered (entered) the atmosphere there should be blackened rocks. I simply gave you what you asked for. "Oh, well, um", "They are just normal, or ,errr, umm". You can't have it both ways.
You find some normal looking rocks in a stream bed and leap to the conclusion that they are from space and in particular this failed planet of yours?
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye
The areas adjacent to this area have good soil depth, what you would expect to find. No real old growth woods in this area, but areas next to it do. I am taking into consideration old logging as well.
It seems there is a misconception concerning the age of the earth. The OP poses the question is the earth younger than previously believed.
I think that calling the thread a misconception is pouring an awful lot of sugar and honey on the reality of this scenario.It's not a misconception, its a beckoning to a specific timeline based on literal interpretation of Hebrew scripture. A timeline that never existed prior to the second half of the18th century and isn't supported by Hebrew scholars.
stumbled upon a oddity that challenges logic. Certainly the first choice is to consider earthly processes to explain what I have found. Exhausting those possibilities you must consider other possibilities.
yet it doesn't defy logic nor have all earthly processes been falsified.
to get a grasp on these odd "Concretions" I stumbled upon some new research that states they may not be as old as previously thought.
No, that's not what the research claims. It claims that in some instances, concretions form far quicker than previously thought. That doesn't mean the concretion is ny younger or older than previously thought. When an age or date is ascribed to a sample, it isn't based off of a single dating technique. 2 or 3 dating methods are typically used and forming faster doesn't make the sediment forming the concretion any younger and certainly doesn't affect the strata the formation is located in.
, the formation of Concretions are not exclusive to, Earth.
That has been known for over 20 years when "blueberries" were found in
The results of this new study dramatically impact understanding of the rate at which concretions form. “Until now, the formation of spherical carbonate concretions was thought to take hundreds of thousands to millions of years,” co-author Koshi Yamamoto says. “However, our results show that concretions grow at a very fast rate over several months to several years.” This rapid sealing mechanism could explain why some concretions contain well-preserved fossils of soft tissues that are rarely fossilized under other conditions.
The team evaluated concretions in Japan, England and New Zealand. Not all concretions contain fossils; small versions, dubbed “blueberries” by JPL scientists, have been found on Mars.
Concretions Can Form Rapidly
It is not my intention to say all our earth arrived her via "space dust", only that, that space dust may have been in the form of very large amounts, in short periods of time, in specific places, over geologic time. Trying to date something not knowing its true origins would obviously cause great errors in dating our own planet.
It's not a terribly difficult thing to compare the isotopic signatures of earth based formations to those of Mars for example as we know what chemical signatures each planet will demonstrate. And could you explain exactly what makes it difficult to date?
Such a radical revision in formation rates, “at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales,” is bound to cause a stir among geologists who have assumed that concretions take up to a million years to form.
The key take away from the above is "Assume". Geologist, for one reason or another are not allowed to consider "Other" geology from other planets contaminating our own planet.
if the theories concerning the Asteroid belt are incorrect, in that it is not a band of materials that failed to come together as a planet, but rather, was a planet that failed catastrophically, sending mass amounts of debris, soil, rock, clays, water, biology, and yes concretions, into the solar system, to be splattered throughout the solar system.
yourself why the ancient writings do not state the asteroid belt is a planet that didn't form. Why do they say, it was a planet, that failed.
anyone who is interested, I am willing to send samples of these materials to be Analyzed to a PO box, anonymously. I will pay the shipping charges. Just PM me the info.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
From the original source materials.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: All Seeing Eye
That website is not legitimate. It's strictly a promotion of creationism and it's purpose is to attack evolution, for the most part.
The estimated growth rates are at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales of concretion formation27,28.
Generalized conditions of spherical carbonate concretion formation around decaying organic matter in early diagenesis
Researchers at Nagoya University have analyzed dozens of concretions from three sites across Japan, England and New Zealand. Studying the chemical composition in a transect from the outer layers of a concretion towards the surrounding rocks, the researchers were able to crack some of the open questions. The chemical composition shows also that indeed the fossils play a role in the origin of the concretions. The element calcium, cementing smaller sedimentary particles together and forming the hard, compact matter, comes from the decaying organic remains.
More surprising were the results of the growth rates. Concretions were thought to take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form. However, they instead apparently grow at a very fast rate over just several months to several years. This new observation could also explain why the fossils found inside the concretions are so well preserved.
Scientists Have Cracked The Mystery Of How Fossil Concretions Form
I'm not going to argue religious bios. All things must be considered by its own merit, or lack of. Other web sites are carrying the same results.
Weak argument. It is noted what you chose not to argue
Even if the Main Asteroid Belt had 100 times the mass that it contains today, it still wouldn't be half the size of mars and nobody has demonstrated evidence of a single planet of such low mass being able to exist between mars and Jupiter that catastrophically exploded, rained debris down on the earth and messed up every single dating methodology at our collective disposal.
I'd rather ask you to provide the ancient texts that talk about this. Nothing personal, I just like to see for myself what people base their ideas on for purposes of context. Thanks
I'm not saying it is. I'm only pointing out how "settled" Science, is not always settled.
Unless you're suggesting planet Earth formed around a giant fossil, this is apples and oranges. Concretion is not a model for how to grow a planet in under 10k years
I'm not saying it is. I'm only pointing out how "settled" Science, is not always settled.
originally posted by: sapien82
what I want to know is , if god created us , then why is it that life only has a small window of opportunity to exist in the universe given that all life will be extinct in the future of the universe as the suns will all turn to white dwarfs
Did god only plan for us to live for a small period of time ?
If he created the universe for us , then why are we only here for a small time ?
like we have been given a time based puzzle to solve !
Thanks by the way