Prehistoric ecosystem found in Israeli cave

Wow is all i can say to this

news.yahoo.com...

"
The cave was completely sealed off from the world, including from water and nutrients seeping through rock crevices above. Scientists who discovered the cave believe it has been intact for millions of years."


8 new spices found inside this cave, how cool is that

And to think it's been that way for millions of years and we came along and screwed it up.

on the pluss side you know what this means? if there was life on mars at some point it could still be living inside some cave like this.

Nice find stink. I'm gonna google and ask.com it but if you come across a more detailed article you should post it here.

I find this very interesting (from article):

Every species we examined had no eyes which means they lost their sight due to evolution," said Dimantman.

So while the cave may have been cut of for five million years and the ecosystem has remained unchanged; it would seem that these species have evolved and mutated to fit their quarantined environment. Very cool.

I would like to point out though that every monster movie that starts out with scientists finding wierd crap in a cave never ends well.

Spiderj

msnbc.msn.com...

is a better artical and it has pics too

A BBC video can be found here (found link on coasttocoastam.com)

news.bbc.co.uk...

Not to dismiss the find as a fraud, obviously it's true, but, the statement that this ecosystem is millions of years old doesn't fit well. Carbon dating is not very accurate. The article containing pictures of one of the new spicies is intersting (as it resembles an albino crawfish). I do believe this ecosystem was found, in tact, with mutated creatures that have adapted to their environment, however, I believe these specimen have only adapted in a period of a few thousand years, as apposed to the millions of years many scientists would like to claim.

Just some food for thought.

Very cool. Only the blind scorpion was dead, the other specimens they've found so far were alive.

They have closed the quarry off to the public...which of course agian feels like the start of a monster movie and I refer you to a quote from the second article:

When one of the volunteer staff crouched down to measure the temperature of the warm, sulfuric water, he suddenly jumped up and yelled “there is something moving here.”

I've seen enough B movies to know that somebody is definitely going to get his or her brain sucked out of their head.

Spiderj

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
Not to dismiss the find as a fraud, obviously it's true, but, the statement that this ecosystem is millions of years old doesn't fit well.

Doesn't fit well in which world? The Scientific or Biblical World? Carbon dating is good for about 60,000 years. After that they use other methods. Since the cave was sealed off from all outside interference with a thick layer of chalk, how would you account for it being a dual fresh/marine system when the sea hadn't been there for millenia as well as being buried 328 feet underground beneath a limestone quarry which in itself probably took ages to form. Creationists must find themselves in a quandry when there are finds such as this.

PieMan, did you read the articles I linked to? Whether your basing carbon dating Scientifically or Biblically C-14 can be dismissed as being a viable source to trace something back millions of years. You said yourself carbon dating is good for about 60,000 years. 60,000 years is not a million. And to what other dating methods do you have in mind that could date something that far back as millions of years? Other forms of Radiometric datings, that can be shown as non-accurate as well [Scientifically]? I do not mean to single you out, but I want you to see where I'm coming from.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by PrimaFaciFacts]

[edit on 2-6-2006 by PrimaFaciFacts]

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
Whether your basing carbon dating Scientifically or Biblically C-14 can be dismissed as being a viable source to trace something back millions of years. You said yourself carbon dating is good for about 60,000 years. 60,000 years is not a million. And to what other dating methods do you have in mind that could date something that far back as millions of years?

From the site that you quoted it says as a backup to prove their theory that carbon dating was inaccurate that a penguin was carbon dated as being 8000 years old.
As quoted below anything dying after 1940 the results will become tainted. If they are testing something even now that has died after 1940 the results will be inaccurate. Obviously these Israeli scientists did not use C-14 since they are claiming the find to be much older then that, but apparently there must be another way they dated it. As the article says, they will release a full study later.

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

How Stuff Works

You are using a site that is basing its evidence on a book written 2000 years ago by a people who thought eclipses and comets were evil and the earth was flat. if it weren't for science we'd probably still believe these things. Sites like that only serve to stifle mans knowledge in order to perpetuate their beliefs.

very intresting find
goes to show what kind of creatures may be lurking in the darkest parts of earth or in our deepest jungles or even the deepest seas may be waiting to be dicovered

You are using a site that is basing its evidence on a book written 2000 years ago by a people who thought eclipses and comets were evil and the earth was flat. if it weren't for science we'd probably still believe these things. Sites like that only serve to stifle mans knowledge in order to perpetuate their beliefs.

I've been to serveral sites, many are ones backed by scientists, and I recieved the same information everywhere I went. I'm not on the debate of the Biblical view of this topic. I'm merely expressing my views through what science has brought to light. All I want to know is what other means of Radiometric Dating is there that would be any more accurate than C-14. Every element of the Periodic Table that Scientists utilize to conduct their work is calculated through a mean based off an elements average behavior. There is room for err there. We don't live in a vacuum so results can very drastically. If anyone can find what the specifics are of the various other Radiometric Dating mediums are it would bring more to the table. I know those other variations of C-14 dating are based off of the other elements of the Periodic Table, making them just as much inaccurate as C-14. Argon alone is a variable that, despite its easy calculation, it can pose as a factor that disproves the time frame in which these Scientists are conveying.

you, sir, are a hater. there's room for error in everything humans do, that's a well known fact. let's just wait until the full study comes out and judge everything then.

Originally posted by 25cents
you, sir, are a hater. there's room for error in everything humans do, that's a well known fact. let's just wait until the full study comes out and judge everything then.

No, I'm not a hater, a skeptic. There is a difference. We all know that none of us are perfect. And we could wait for a study, but why? ThePieMan and I were having a good debate. And this study is not going to reveal scientific practices that are not already known. If it does, I'll put my foot in my mouth for you, personally.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by PrimaFaciFacts]

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
[ I'm not on the debate of the Biblical view of this topic. I'm merely expressing my views through what science has brought to light.

Well on the site you posted as a reference.

(instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says)

God cursed the ground (the rocks too!)

See my commentary on Genesis 3 verse 17 "..cursed is the ground for your sake"

It just didn't strike me as being scientific. I took it as though you were trying to debunk this amazing find using biblical theory. My appologies if you posted the link and didn't notice these items in your link.

I would like to hear their explanation of the 3+ large objects that hit the earth causing craters, some almost 300miles in diameter, if the earth is not billions of years old. Im pretty sure if these catastrophic events happened within the last 10-20,000 years we would still be in their after-effects.

No prob PieMan. I must have given the wrong link. I use tabbed browsing and when I get going I have so many tabs up I can't even read a title at all. I'm happy it at least pertained to the topic . And as for the craters, I can research it and find what Christians say about that argument.

Ok, PieMan. I went to Dr. Ken Ham's Website. He is a Christian with a background in Science. From there I found an article about Craters. And it was interesting. Bible verses were used to back up the claims. But to me it did not give the full picture to what I was looking for. In the article it mentioned about the Great Flood and how it was a global flood. So I dug up info on the Flood as well. From what I gathered, if you believe the Great Flood that Noah was in was a global flood then such things such as craters could have been created as well as quick fossilization.

*Now this was strictly for answering ThePieMan's question of what Christians say about craters. My intention was not to bring up a Bible debate.*

[edit on 2-6-2006 by PrimaFaciFacts]

Why I was under impression that it takes a huge size for an ecosystem to work?

It will be interesting to read reports on this find when they release them.

Thanks for the links!

In the last couple of days two other threads about this have been opened.

The First

ATS Thread on Ecosystem 1

The Second

ATS Thread on Ecosystem 2