Ancient Microbes In The "Deadest" Part Of Earth Redefine Boundaries Of Life

a reply to: Phantom423

Then why are you using the internet??????? You should be working on your stone tools and paintings on cave walls.

That's the whole point lil darl'n I'd be better off. lmao

a reply to: cooperton

The problem is we can't fully trust the interpretation given by scientists anymore.

Once again brother you said it better than I. Much love to you sir.

We have to look at the data ourselves.

And you certainly have the mind for it. I get lost and admire you among few others
for that.

When I researched into Radiometric dating, that really did it for me. I was astonished that it's a total guessing game. I've read some papers where they assume the initial concentration of the radioactive isotope is 100%, which is crazy, because a 100% pure sample is literally never found in nature. They simply made up the initial concentration that would best fit their narrative.

One thing people know me for is I know truth when I hear it.
And thus the same goes for lies.

a reply to: FinallyAwake

Not at all.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: FinallyAwake

Not at all.

I guess I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "not believing in science" then?

I mean, you believe in the technology you are communicating with right now, right?

So i assume what you meant was specific to the op or context, my bad if so. Yes I agree the dating could be a load of BS on this one, i was just sharing the article.

But not believing in science in general would be folly imo.

a reply to: FinallyAwake

All good my fellow member

originally posted by: FinallyAwake

But not believing in science in general would be folly imo.

Here is the research article that they are referring to in your OP: Link

Where do you suppose is the science that proves they are dealing with a 101.5 million year old sediment? What is the evidence to support that assertion? Carsforkids does not believe their supposition. Neither do I. There is no factual unambiguous data that would prove they are dealing with 101.5 million year old organisms. Here is the difference between applied science (technology) and theoretical science. Applied science is known to work. Theoretical science can't seem to prove itself, and therefore is contingent upon belief. They say in the article that every million years 75cm of soot is deposited from the volcano - yet how can they account for the endless amounts of variability that would have occurred throughout that theoretical timeframe? What if it was simply a massive flood that very quickly deposited these organisms deep underground according to hydrologic sorting densities??

The thing is, they skewed the observations to fit what they wanted it to say. "Let's say it is 100 million year old bacteria brought back to life, that would definitely make it to the news articles". And everyone eats it up like its high fructose corn syrup....
Rarely does anyone ask how they know with such certainty regarding their timeline. When in fact, they simply made it up. There's no way they can know that a volcano deposits soot 75 centimeters every million years. It's hubris at its finest. And the scientific community allows them to just make it up as they go along, so long as they adhere to the evolutionary dogma timeline.

Don't be a blind believer in this garbage, investigate into it on your own. Look for the actual facts, and learn when researchers have no basis for what they're saying. Remember, they're looking to get grant money, and hyperbole is great for business.

originally posted by: carsforkids


Once again brother you said it better than I. Much love to you sir.

Love you too man, always enjoyable reading your enthusiastic posts!

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: FinallyAwake

But not believing in science in general would be folly imo.

Here is the research article that they are referring to in your OP: Link

Where do you suppose is the science that proves they are dealing with a 101.5 million year old sediment? What is the evidence to support that assertion? Carsforkids does not believe their supposition. Neither do I. There is no factual unambiguous data that would prove they are dealing with 101.5 million year old organisms. Here is the difference between applied science (technology) and theoretical science. Applied science is known to work. Theoretical science can't seem to prove itself, and therefore is contingent upon belief. They say in the article that every million years 75cm of soot is deposited from the volcano - yet how can they account for the endless amounts of variability that would have occurred throughout that theoretical timeframe? What if it was simply a massive flood that very quickly deposited these organisms deep underground according to hydrologic sorting densities??

The thing is, they skewed the observations to fit what they wanted it to say. "Let's say it is 100 million year old bacteria brought back to life, that would definitely make it to the news articles". And everyone eats it up like its high fructose corn syrup....
Rarely does anyone ask how they know with such certainty regarding their timeline. When in fact, they simply made it up. There's no way they can know that a volcano deposits soot 75 centimeters every million years. It's hubris at its finest. And the scientific community allows them to just make it up as they go along, so long as they adhere to the evolutionary dogma timeline.

Don't be a blind believer in this garbage, investigate into it on your own. Look for the actual facts, and learn when researchers have no basis for what they're saying. Remember, they're looking to get grant money, and hyperbole is great for business.

originally posted by: carsforkids


Once again brother you said it better than I. Much love to you sir.

Love you too man, always enjoyable reading your enthusiastic posts!

:

I've already said these numbers could be bunk, and that iwas just sharing an article.

And I stand by not believing science in general/other sciences as being folly.

originally posted by: oriondc
... By determining the geological material age, whatever is found in it can also be dated.

Of course, when talking about microbes, they can easily enter a particular rock layer long after it formed. They could have possibly even permeated down into those rocks in the last decades, centuries or milennia (remember that the OP is talking about living microbes). Microbes get pretty much into anything. What's to stop them from permeating deeper and deeper into the Earth's crust as long as they can still survive at that depth (as this research shows)?

For the one asking about dating methods that you were responding to:

Scientific Dates for Prehistoric Times (Awake!—1986)

Radioactive clocks tell time in the millions of years, but how accurately do they tell it?

This article and the two following ones describe and evaluate the different means of radioactive dating used by geologists to measure the ages of rocks and the remains of once-living organisms. They have been prepared by a nuclear physicist of many years’ experience in both research and industry in the field of radioactivity.

...