Chunk of original earth found

reply to post by bekod


Rock cannot be carbon dated so it has nothing to do with this thread, it's an interesting find.

The phrase 'original Earth' fails to consider the other countless Earths residing in parallel realities within this realm we refer to as 'dimension 3.' It would be very difficult to discern between original and altered without moving to a higher dimension and 'looking down' so to speak.

Though I suppose there might be a seed Earth existing somewhere that spawned all existing Earths as each conscious observation and choice brought forth new possibility, though beginnings themselves are questionable.

It's pointless arguing over the age and origin of matter without first acknowledging it's place within the multidimensional construct. You'll then find that 'age' and 'origin' are in fact pointless terms when applied to an infinitely deep existence.

That find is all well and good, and might be of interest to collectors. but I can only afford the "New, Improved Earth". *Sigh*

reply to post by Funshinez


Is that seriously a joke? I mean the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that is actually common fact.... This has to be a joke because stupidity isn't even that stupid.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NoJoker13]

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Funshinez

 

Is that seriously a joke? I mean the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that is actually common fact.... This has to be a joke because stupidity isn't even that stupid.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by NoJoker13]

It's not a common fact, it's a common Theory/Hypothesis.

Calling someone stupid when you are wrong yourself, is ironic indeed.

The subject is up for debate.

Hell what if it turned out to be 5.3 billion years old. You would have pie all over your face than wouldn't you?

Truth is, there is almost no way to know exactly. Hence theory.

And even if there were hypothetically aliens who watched the entire Earth history , and came and told us the real deal, how can we be so sure to believe them? Even they could be deceptive.

And just merely ridiculing someone you disagree with is bad form, sorry.

Rather than being like that, how about we explain our point of view in a mature way and help others find the truth rather than wallowing in the mud of ignorance through ridicule? Thanks.

Lets spell this out. "Original rock from the time that the whole earth was molten lava...."

And somehow, miraculously, plants and animals and human beings evolved out of the magma?

I'm sorry but I gave up evolution long ago when no one could answer any other way than :...we'll it's better than believing in creation...". Thats not the point. Believing in all we see came out of molten rock requires more faith than all the religous peoples of the earth over all time.

I'll repeat it. The clip says it's the "oldest rock on earth that came from a time when the earth was molten rock"

...and we evolved out of that? Check out all the volcanoes on earth. Nothing lives IN the lava that can produce anything. All life arrives at the sites to grow.

This is not a religous arguement, it's a rational one? All life from molten lava?

Originally posted by Evasius
It's pointless arguing over the age and origin of matter without first acknowledging it's place within the multidimensional construct.

ATS What happened to this place...

reply to post by daggyz

Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth. Life did not begin on Earth for at least half a billion years after the earth had cooled. 500 million years. A lot of things can happen in that amount of time. Rocks break down into chemicals. Chemicals arrive from space. Chemicals merge into more complex chemicals.

No one said life came out of magma.

I am sure you have a way to prove that complex DNA can come out of the processes of Lava?.... Dating methods are in general based on faulty assumptions. They even proved a living snail was thousands of years old by carbon dating. As far as the alinement of the pyramids in Egypt to come up with age. Hear to the earth has gone threw a pole shift in its pass. So even that argument is faulty. Now comes the one about people being able to live over 900 years old. In Glen Rose Texas the Creation Research Society some years ago rediscovered the true EM field of the earth. As it was much smaller atmospheric pressure fact the earth is growing 22 millimeters a year only today. With the correct atmospheric pressure of two. Cell divide nine times and the first cell with not die. They have been able to make flies last twice as long and another of other things happen snakes become non toxic after two weeks and fish grow twice their size in half the time. It explains the larger size of animals then. Three foot rabbits, 47 foot gators, 9 foot sloths and etc. So most of the reasons for long ages is known today on a cellular basis. However the reasons that the body after growth starts to die at all is a work in progress. That are starting to produce answers.

We've never been below the Earths crust. So what we believe the Earth looks like below the surface is just a theory. For all we know there is a big hamster running around in there.

I mean really, has anyone ever seen this iron core?

Wow, cool find. I hope there's more interesting data they can glean from the discovery.

I found a chunk to!

www.spenditex.nl...

Originally posted by Markafeller
I am sure you have a way to prove that complex DNA can come out of the processes of Lava?....

Nobody EVER claimed that DNA came out of lava although if you had any understanding of life on earth you would know that there is life everywhere, even on the very edge of volcanos, right on the hot rock. They are called extremophiles and are one of many diverse extremophiles. They get their name from their inherent nature and tendency to live in extreme conditions. So life may have existed in some very basic form from a very early stage in the Earth's development.

Primordial DNA is hypothesized to have formed out of the repeated random combinations of RNA strands. RNA is far less complex and once you begin to understand cell development at a basic level, you can begin to extrapolate and subsequently demonstrate through a sort of reverse engineering how the early primordial tidal pools created (along with help from some other variables aligning in a conducive window) the conditions necessary for more complex forms of life to evolve.

Or you can argue that some all-powerful deity created life, because there is clearly far more credible evidence for that version of the beginning of life.

Dating methods are in general based on faulty assumptions. They even proved a living snail was thousands of years old by carbon dating.

Surely they didn't prove it but in fact quite the opposite?

I believe the study you refer to was actually on mollusks and it was later found that mollusks absorb much of their carbon from dissolved limestone and since we know limestone is ancient, much of the C-14 would likely have already decayed to C-12. As the mollusks had predominantly absorbed this form of carbon as opposed to the C-14 that is absorbed by almost all other living things on Earth, their age was misrepresented.

Modern radiometric dating methods are not based on faulty assumptions, all the logical errors of previous methodology have been understood, C-14 (Carbon 14) decays at the same rate regardless of conditions (temp, pressure, EMF etc.) so provided you have a reasonable, logically set benchmark (say, tree ring history providing correlating, testable, repeatable data which is irrefutable perhaps?) then you can begin to make very accurate educated guesses, not necessarily perfect to the day but within enough decades or centuries as to make no difference over the kind of time the Earth has been around.

After that point, your post makes no sense whatsoever and reads like somebody who has no understanding of science trying to justify your arguments with some kind of facts.

Then you seem to just float off topic on a euphoric hallucinatory cloud of imagination, or did you lose the capacity to iterate your point in decipherable language?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by bungle]

Originally posted by Come Clean
We've never been below the Earths crust. So what we believe the Earth looks like below the surface is just a theory. For all we know there is a big hamster running around in there.

I mean really, has anyone ever seen this iron core?

Maybe it wasn't lava or magma at all but a Giant Hamster dropping?

Originally posted by daggyz
Lets spell this out. "Original rock from the time that the whole earth was molten lava...."

And somehow, miraculously, plants and animals and human beings evolved out of the magma?

uh no, life formed from chemicals millions of years after the earth cooled.


/quote]I'm sorry but I gave up evolution long ago when no one could answer any other way than :...we'll it's better than believing in creation...". Thats not the point. Believing in all we see came out of molten rock requires more faith than all the religous peoples of the earth over all time.
why are you posting about evolution? this is about the earth.

I'll repeat it. The clip says it's the "oldest rock on earth that came from a time when the earth was molten rock"

the clip may say that, but molten rock would be nearly liquid, it couldn't be molten and we couldn't date it.
dating rock only happens after it cools and hardens, then the isotopes start to break down.

...and we evolved out of that? Check out all the volcanoes on earth. Nothing lives IN the lava that can produce anything. All life arrives at the sites to grow.

no, and not one scientist who studies biology has ever said that.

This is not a religous arguement, it's a rational one? All life from molten lava?

no, this "argument" is a straw-man of the real argument.
if we must delve into abiogenesis, life began nearly 1 billion years after the earth formed.
this rock is from 200 million years before that.

Originally posted by SilentStigma

Chunk of original earth found

... in northern Canada there is a chunk of pristine, undisturbed rock from the time when Earth was nothing but molten rock.

"



A chunk of pristine, undisturbed rock found in Canada, wow.

That whole place is one giant piece of undisturbed rock!
Just go 180 miles north from the border with the US and you'll see for yourself...a whole lot of undisturbed rock, probably all from when the earth was formed, no doubt.

Just kiddn', I love Canada!

I have family there, we always send each other jokes about US and Canada. Sometimes, though, after we send them jokes about snow it takes them long time to write back.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by tungus]

Excellent post ! good find ! we should explore our own lands and oceans more its amazing what we find in our own back yard

Thread started good then it kind of became a gong show...

A little weird how this became a bible/religious discussion.

Please people do not compare science and religion, they are not even close, science evolves and religion remains the same.

I believe there is some crazy stuff that has happened in the existence of Earth but I think religious texts have nothing to do with it. People back in the day did not have the same knowledge as we do now, and I ask you this if you had never seen the aurora borealis before and had no idea what it was you could make up a crazy story for it as well. But as science started discovering optics and trying to explain light we began to understand this and got rid of the "story" behind it.

Is science always right? No.

Does science change their theories? Yes, only when the church allows though.

Don't bash science as without it we would still be living in caves.

Pred...

Originally posted by Funshinez
This is clearly disinfo spread by the liberal jew media in an attempt to "prove" the earth is more than 6000 years old.

I c an see no better way of wearing your ignorance on your sleeve!

PMSL! If you weren't joking, I have deep fears for your sanity and ability to think critically!

IRM

reply to post by PieKeeper


With 8 years science/math, BA biology, MS soils/chemistry, I ought to be able to contribute to this. How old was this chunk supposed to be? Not 60 mil, the prevalent view is that the earth is billions of years old, not mils, and the universe appears to be far older than the 20-50 billion or so attributable to the Big Bang. Let's try to separate fact, conjecture and real hard science, but first let me state a fact of extensive and profound experience for millions - God absolutely does exist, and so does Jesus as God, and the Holy Spirit. As a secular trained scientist (who later dropped out of the profession due to such arguments), how could I be an evolutionist, and doesn't that make me a traitor to God? Ok, quick try, here. The Bible does not put a physical age on the earth, the 6,000/10,000 year old claims are inferences based on the adding of generations and so forth. Also, as one person among millions who has literally met God in a profound way, I'd have to admit that I don't know if the 6 days of creation are an allegory, but to an educated person, the measurement of time itself is not absolutely fixed, and therefore at the time of creation these "days" would have meaning only in God's reckoning only. Even a physical clock under those circumstances would not tick at the same speed as today. Now, the long ages of Noah and others are also quite possible, because we do not know exactly what physical conditions were in effect at that time. Perhaps the earth was revolving about the sun much faster. We just don't know how things were reckoned back then. But Noah did exist, and there's good physical evidence, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.

RC dating is also very iffy for prehistoric measures, because again, we can't know if the assumptions of today hold true. The ratio of radio carbon over long periods must be assumed, so there's always far more uncertainty than admitted. Not only do we not know, but we likely can't know. For geological dating, which I think is based on other radioactive decay measures, the problem is even worse, so very bold inferences must be made. When I was a kid, the universe was about 4 billion years old, then it was 10, then it was 20, now it's near 50 billion assuming 2 way travel of light since the Big Bang. Now, this is going to get too messy to go into detail, but there never was a Big Bang, and very careful study will tell you why there wasn't. Part of that is good evidence that the universe is much, much older than that, and probably eternal. From the standpoint of earthly, human measures, the universe always was and always will be. So how then, could God have created it. This is something again that nobody can know, but it's not at all unrealistic to conclude that for God there was an initial creation point, but it was not a Big Bang, and yet for us it would appear that the universe always was. This can all be true because God lives outside of physical time. He himself had no beginning and will have no end.

But, but, but, how about evolution, which is so well proved and established? But it hasn't been proved, it's mostly inference. First, we must ask, just what inferences belong to evolution and which do not. Just like the belief in creation for Christians, the perception of "evolution" is not fixed in a universal dogma, but encompasses a lot of opinion, and the theoretical chain of events in the creation of separate species amounts to rampant conjecture. Very little of this is real, hard science, it is simply rampant conjecture based on a few very well established facts. I was very interested in the drama surrounding the discovery of DNA when I was a kid. The physiology of genes and DNA is pretty good science, these things do exist, but their reality is very, very small in relation to the totality of chemical interactions in living organisms.