Chunk of original earth found

reply to post by bekod


Re: Carbon dating - Three things.

One - drop by Wikipedia and look up radiometric dating. You'll learn how it works, that there are more methods than just carbon dating, that carbon dating is actually pretty reliable.

Two - Punctuation and sentences. A long, run-on sentence is fairly annoying - if you're still in school, it's probably costing you points on essays. If not, it costs you points with everyone else.

Three - Seriously? You'll believe an ancient book's claims about a guy living 950 years, but actual, tested and retested science you won't accept? No wonder we're something like 12th in education in the civilized world.

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by SilentStigma

 

I don't trust scientist as far as I can throw them. They have doctored evidence too much, and they jump to conclusions constantly.

What are you basing that on? You might want to actually learn the facts about these things; it's hardly the giant spinning dartboard you paint it as.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by PieKeeper

There's no actual evidence that Noah existed, and the supposed story of Noah existed earlier with the story of Deucalion.

Debating "Noah" proves you guys are ignoring the real deal here.

There is clearly erosion evidence of a global flood (possibly multiple floods) that can be found on mountains around the world, and not only that, but almost every culture on Earth has "flood stories and myths" that detail the account.

So it's pretty obvious that it happened at some point.

No, it's not obvious that "it" happened.

What's obvious is that floods happen. Back then and now.

But a global flood? Noah, big boat, menagerie, 40 days, etc.? Nope, never happened.

No geological evidence for it. Not a bit.

Check the geology of any location known for flooding, you'll find it. Evidence in the rock layers that says, yes, there was a big flood in this area a few thousand or a million years ago.

A worldwide flood would leave worldwide evidence. A layer of what once was silt & sediment & debris, left by a massive flood, easily recognizable to any geologist. A layer of rock containing an unusually huge amount of fossils, because the flood would kill everything on land, then bury it in mud. Areas that used to be villages, full of the remains of people drowned and buried in mud. Like Pompeii, but minus the volcano, and worldwide.

There is no such worldwide layer. Not even a partial. Not even a third, or an 8th. Nada. Niente. Bupkus.

Guess what there is a worldwide layer of. Ever hear of iridium? A fairly rare element on Earth's surface, common in space - asteroids, meteors, etc.

And at the point in the rock record where the dinosaurs died off and mammals started taking over, 65 million years ago, there is a worldwide layer of iridium. There is also a very old impact crater in the Yucatan peninsula, which geologists generally agree is most likely the source of that iridium layer. Full of shocked quartz and other meteor impact markers. It's well-known, it's called the K-T Boundary.

A meteor struck the Yucatan, threw tons of debris into the air, which blocked out the sun and fell back to earth all over the world.

That's an example of a genuine worldwide event. It's the same here and in S. America and Europe and anywhere else you dig to that point.

Noah's Flood? Nowhere to be found.

And flood stories and myths? Yeah, different cultures have them. So what?

You're a Bronze age or earlier culture. You haven't even caught on to new "writing" fad. You live in a valley. The world as you know it is a few hundred miles, give or take.

One day, sploosh, your whole village gets hit by a flood. Maybe another Hurricane Katrina.

As far as you know, this is the biggest disaster ever. As far as you know, it encompasses the whole world. And as the story gets told and retold, down the generations, it gets bigger, more colorful, gets mythologized.

Get the idea?

If Katrina or that tidal wave that made the news a few years ago had happened to a bunch of primitives, what do you think they'd have thought? What with no CNN cameras and aid workers showing up to tell them different?

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Sorry, but there is no proof of that. Just their speculation. Prove the air was more acidic. Let them prove anything they say.

Prove one of these things, it is impossible.

What, you think science is a bunch guys tossing ideas in a hat and pulling them out like a raffle or something?

Here's the deal.

Air contains a mixture of gases, dust and other materials. When water in a given time freezes, it also contains air, which is like having a snapshot of that time's surface atmospheric mix.

That's why people go to the ice caps, cut out long cores of ice which they slice up and analyze.

Lava rocks, sediment layers, they all contain similar information. This isn't hard to grasp.

Get it now? Come on, science isn't a guessing game. Try learning a thing or two about it.

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
And flood stories and myths? Yeah, different cultures have them. So what?

You're a Bronze age or earlier culture. You haven't even caught on to new "writing" fad. You live in a valley. The world as you know it is a few hundred miles, give or take.

One day, sploosh, your whole village gets hit by a flood. Maybe another Hurricane Katrina.

As far as you know, this is the biggest disaster ever. As far as you know, it encompasses the whole world. And as the story gets told and retold, down the generations, it gets bigger, more colorful, gets mythologized.

Get the idea?

If Katrina or that tidal wave that made the news a few years ago had happened to a bunch of primitives, what do you think they'd have thought? What with no CNN cameras and aid workers showing up to tell them different?

I just want to point something out here, and see if this helps you at all.
You are trying to argue with people who believe that all scientists (not just some - all) are part of a worldwide "Satanic Conspiracy" to undermine the works of God (because 12 years for a Masters, Associates Degree and all the associated student loans, they're doing that for the mean old Debil!). The key here is that all information should come from only God and the Bible (and remember, they once pronounced that the Earth was flat, and the center of the Universe,- and burned people for saying otherwise).

You are wasting your typing skills and your time. This is what the ignore function is for. Deny Ignorance = Ignore Ignorance. The more people that refuse to listen to the ostriches, the more of them will get the hint and go away. Just don't even acknowledge it, and as historical nature shows - the ignorant and the weak will be choked out by the stronger of the species.

LOL

That's some old dirt there... :>

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by SilentStigma

 

I don't trust scientist as far as I can throw them.

I laugh to myself every time I see someone write something like this.

They have doctored evidence too much,

Here's a great thing about the way science is conducted in the modern world: peer review. You publish your results and let everyone else read them. And, typically, you've included enough detail about the way you conducted your experiments to let someone else replicate the experiment. Someone out there who reads your paper is going to disagree with some facet of it and is going to try and reproduce your work to confirm it. So, simply, it doesn't pay to doctor results. You will be found out and discredited as a researcher.

and they jump to conclusions constantly.

No, scientists let the evidence guide their conclusions. If you get on the interstate at exit A and drive to exit B, you didn't randomly end up at wherever exit B is, the interstate led you there.

I don' put to much faith in their statements, and I recommend others don't as well.

Take every piece of technology that science has given you, including the computer you're using to be on this site, and get rid of it. Lambasting someone for their methods and then reaping the fruit of their work is complete hypocrisy.

I know it is hard to break that training, but try.

I know it is hard to break the misplaced mistrust, but try.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Just the wording of this doesn't make any sense.

The entire Earth is the original Earth, duh.

Well, minus a few meteorites, but thats totally negligible at like .0000001%.

Cmon' people!

The way I took it is the "orginal eath" as in the make up up of earth as it was forming and cooling off in the very begining. Over time earth formed an atmospher and as magma or lava comes to the surface it is "contaminated" by the atmospher. old rock is also rescycled into new, and as the old "contaminated" rock was recycled it lost the makeup that the orginal earth had.

Yeah, scientists are so a bunch of pretenders and "claimers"...

From A Physics Primer.

Science and the Scientific Method

We briefly discuss the epistemology of science and the method(s) adopted in the practice of science.

Method

Method, or methods, usually refers to procedures and prescriptions that are applied for finding solutions to new and unsolved problems. Hence, before discussing the more specific case of the methodology of science, a brief discussion on the general question of method is in place. Social theorists have analyzed various methods that can be used in obtaining knowledge, and have come up with a classification of the procedures followed in the creation of new theories and ideas. The inductive method goes back to Aristotle and Newton, and consists of inferring the universal rule by looking at many specific examples. For example, if the earth attracts the apple, one concludes by induction that the earth also attracts all bodies that have mass. In contrast, the deductive method starts from a universal postulate, and then proceeds to ``deduce'' what the workings of the universal rule should be in particular examples. For example, if it is true that cholesterol can cause heart disease in all individuals, then one deduces that a patient with high cholesterol also will have the same disease. In other words, one can go from particulars to the universal using the inductive method, as well as from the universal to the particulars using the deductive method. Karl Popper has the well known definition of what is a scientific hypothesis, namely, it is a falsifiable hypothesis in that under some circumstances the hypothesis could have been false, and only if it survives such a test, can it be taken to be valid. For Popper, scientific theories progress through conjectures and falsifications. Thomas Kuhn proposed the idea of ``paradigm'', in which a theoretical framework - called a paradigm - is accepted to be valid. Scientists then apply the paradigm in all sorts of new and novel circumstances to find out where the paradigm breaks down. This ``paradigm-breaking'' method is taken to be an explanation as to how new scientific theories emerge. Day to day and routine research in science can be partially understood using the categories described above. For example, most physicists accept the validity of quantum theory - a so-called paradigm - and work within its framework to find new, novel and unforeseen consequences. Research proceeds both inductively and deductively, and in practice, scientists will use any and all modes of inquiry in attempting to solve a problem. All the methods above can be applied with varying degrees of relevance to both the sciences and to the humanities, although the applicability of these methods is more well established in the sciences.

Continued below...

The Scientific Method

The scientific method encompasses both the mathematical and empirical sciences, and we briefly discuss why it is necessity that drives science and determines what we mean by the scientific method. By necessity we mean iron laws of nature and of human thought that scientific theories have to try and explain. By the statement that science is driven by necessity, we mean that the discipline of science as such addresses aspects of reality that are governed by necessity. This is not to say that scientists are driven by necessity. To the contrary, scientists are driven primarily by curiosity and the desire to know how the natural world functions. Scientific research is open ended and exploratory, and finding new and unexplained phenomena is the main objective. On the other hand, inquiry which is motivated by other criteria such as fulfilling human or social objectives usually falls under the category of engineering and technology. Mathematical sciences - which include mathematics, computer science, simulations and so on - consist of purely symbolic structures that are freely produced by the human mind. Of course all of language consists of signs and words as well, in that the word is not a thing but can only signify (point to) to what it represents. However mathematical sciences are symbolic systems with a difference, in that they are constrained and driven by necessity. A mathematical theorem necessarily follows from the axioms of the subject. It does not depend on the subjectivity of any mathematician, since all mathematicians will be able to reproduce the same (universal) result.

Mathematical investigations and explorations are subject to the iron laws of necessity. Evidence in mathematics consists of the derivation of the result. There are instances when there are plausible theorems for which no such evidence is available, and such theorems are called conjectures. Only when a proof is offered is the matter resolved. Mathematics is that component of human thought that is entirely and completely determined by necessity. Mathematical theorems are unconditionally valid - in all circumstances and for all time. Empirical sciences - which include physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology and so on - are theories and explanations of nature based on empirical verification. Such verification entails producing evidence - for or against the theory - in the form of data which is presented to sense perception, and is external to the mind. Scientific data cannot be something that is produced by the human mind, for example, a personal opinion and so on. Once empirical evidence - namely, data - has been procured, the mind can then analyze such data to interpret, verify or falsify various scientific theories. Data is the result of the process of experimentation, in which some natural phenomenon is studied. There is a view that experiments should be differentiated from observations, in that experiment is taken in the following narrow sense. Namely that experiment implies procedures - in a laboratory or controlled environment - in which the degrees of freedom can be isolated from the environment and restricted, and that the process under study can be repeated time and again, and so on. Observations, on the other hand, are taken to be procedures in which the experimenter plays a passive role, as in the collection of data in astronomy, geophysics and so on. We use the term experiment for both procedures, since in both cases the underlying logic of both endeavors is the same, namely to obtain data regarding the phenomenon of interest, and for empirically testing the relevant theory in question. The hallmark of all empirical science is the following: The sole criterion of scientific truth is experiment

Continued Below...

[edit on 13/8/2010 by drakus]

Experiments in turn are closely guided by theory as well. One of the hallmarks of science is the ability to identify mathematical symbols of the theory with certain physical phenomenon, and then go out and measure these physical quantities. For example, we define velocity as the rate at which the position of an object is changing. We can then go out and measure the velocity of the object. Very abstract and subtle properties of nature are defined by advanced scientific theories, and which in turn indicate the manner by which they can be experimentally tested. For example, an atom is incredibly small, but once its physical properties have been understood, precise experimental tools can then measure these properties. At the advanced levels of science, theory has to guide experiment on what to look for, and one can often find new phenomenon because of this guiding role of theory. Experiments in turn react back on theory with new findings. It is this dialectic of experiment and theory which has for the last four hundred years driven scientific knowledge. Scientific theories address only those aspects of nature that can be empirically tested. Scientific imagination is free to create and invent whatever it fancies. However, scientific imagination has to face the acid test of nature, and is subject to necessity imposed by nature. Nature imposed necessity puts severe restrictions on the possible forms of scientific thought. The power of scientific knowledge originates from this very compulsion of experimental validation. Conforming to nature provides science - and in effect man - with the ability to control and manipulate parts of nature. In making nature act and react based on the inherent laws of nature, scientific reason fulfills its own objectives. This ability to gauge the laws of nature has, in turn, led to myriad forms of technologies that have become vital for human survival. Empirical science is driven by necessity, but to a lesser extent than mathematics. The laws of nature are taken to be exact, universal, immutable, unconditional and eternal. The human understanding of these natural laws, however, is partial, limited and contingent. Consequently, truths in the empirical sciences are conditional and contingent: they are valid only in certain well-defined domains and in circumstances that are limited. Any and every scientific law is open to being challenged, and is sometimes completely replaced by laws that have a greater domain of validity. Hence the changing and evolving nature of scientific truths: scientific laws - as realized by the practitioners of science - grow and change to encompass increasing domains of phenomenon and with a greater degree of accuracy.

There is more at the source, but I think it's obvious where i'm going to...

reply to post by SilentStigma

While reading the article I lost count of the number of unproven assumptions that have to be believed to reach the conclusions in the article.

congratulations to the OP, on posting a worthy candidate for "the Dumbest Topic Ever".

And some people actually call this kind of nonsense....science?

wow, a sad day....


Oh look, I found a rock. I think this is a piece of a Neptune. I know because I said it was, and since no one can disprove me, I know all the pseudo-scientists will believe it too.

reply to post by drakus


Ah. So a PhD *a piece of paper* makes a person immune to human nature and failings? HOLY CRAP! I need to get me one of those. Facts can be misrepresented. People can lie, even to themselves. But I know, you only accuse the other religions of doing that.

reply to post by muzzleflash


The smartest thing someone can do when there are two polarized camps if you ask me.

reply to post by Hefficide


I think you misunderstand. It isn't thought to be formed by volcanic processes. It's believed to be formed by well, to put it a certain way astroids impacting together to form a larger body and the heat associated with such activity causing a large amount of the surface to be molten.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by TrailGator
congratulations to the OP, on posting a worthy candidate for "the Dumbest Topic Ever".

And some people actually call this kind of nonsense....science?

wow, a sad day....


Oh look, I found a rock. I think this is a piece of a Neptune. I know because I said it was, and since no one can disprove me, I know all the pseudo-scientists will believe it too.

No no Congratulations to you for having nothing better to do with your time then to post on as you put it "the dumbest topic ever"

You obviously felt the need to express your thoughts about the thread. Therefore it did its job.

Definition of Forum: a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest

I am happy that I put up a topic that you felt strongly enough about to post your feelings. Weather you think its a stupid topic or not, you still posted in it.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Why the hell are our scientists jumping to conclusions?

Oh yeah, because mainstream "science" isn't really science at all, it's more like a faith based religion when you boil it down to it's core.

Exactly. I have believed this for years as you see by my sig below.

The problem with this is that at least with a religion, you know it's a religion. Science is way more dangerous because it's like the hidden cult that crosses over into all peoples lives. All peoples are expected to believe in science.

Since science has become a religion in fact a cult it can be more damaging then any bible thumping money hungry evangelist ever was.

Originally posted by predator0187
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...

Do you have video of this iron core we have? Tell us all, who has been below the crust of the Earth?

Everything scientist say is just a theory. Just like the millions of other theories that exist which explains pretty much everything.

PS...I don't need to be a scientist to figure out hot and cold. That's just human instincts. Living in or not living in caves has nothing to do with science or scientist. Unless you're saying scientist have the mental capacity of a monkey. Even a monkey knows what hot and cold is. That's why birds migrate every winter.

Originally posted by Come Clean
Unless you're saying scientist have the mental capacity of a monkey. Even a monkey knows what hot and cold is. That's why birds migrate every winter.

Birds migrate because monkeys know what hot and cold is?

I think I can put this to rest.

Scientist believe there are layers of the Earth. They have never been below the first layer. So they just BELIEVE the other layers exist.

How is that so different than believing in God?

Explain how you believe in some IRON CORE that you've never seen but you don't believe in a supreme being that you've never seen?

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Come Clean]

reply to post by Come Clean


Do seismic vibrations refract when they go through God? That's how scientists know what the inside of the Earth is like.