Screw 300 million years old! Who built it?

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

What people don't notice, about theories on evolution, or dating of Homo Sapiens in the archaeological field, is that if this world is millions of years old, the bone structure of H. Sapiens has not changed for 100K years. Theoretically, if they are the same for 100K, and we only have proof of real civilization for the past 30K, why in the world didn't they do it before then, since we are the same creatures, today, that they were then?

That's an excellent question. The issue has to do with the types of structures previously built and the meaning of the word civilization. The issue is what has been left behind. Bones and burials are indicative of culture, but not of civilization. The activities of people have changed.

reply to post by XeroOne


Part of someone's hip replacement from another planet?

Sometimes I have dreams where I see ancient things or alien things like ruins in space and strange astronomical phenomenon. Of course, they're just dreams, but they create an impression.

The odds are increasingly in favor of ancient life somewhere out there.

Keep in mind we've only sampled one planet in one experiment for life. And that experiment was plagued by controversy and its creator believes it in fact -did- detect life. ONE experiment. ONE planet. Do the math. ~100 billion stars in our galaxy. Dozens of moons and planets around most or all of those stars at some point in time. Billions of rogue planets that broke orbit from their suns and now drift between systems. Many more asteroids and comets that might carry fossilized remains of life or inactive patches of it. Vast clouds of gasses that're rumored by some to contain simple life.

Our understanding of extraterrestrial life is still covered greatly by darkness and fog.

See here:
io9.com ...

Shostak also admitted that the discovery reaffirms the idea that life could have emerged in the Galaxy a long time ago. "It's been possible to have worlds with life for quite some time now," he said, "there could be life out there that's billions of years old."

Life's been on Earth for billions of years, but things really didn't start happening until the Cambrian Explosion. I can't wait to climb Mount Wiwak!

That's a nice wee crinoid in the OP. Someone else posted a picture of a Bryozoan: I have one of those, they're stunning. I also have a crinoid that I found in the Devonian rocks around Reefton in the South Island of New Zealand. Accompanying that were some beautiful brachiopods, with strain indicators showing that they had been subjected to stresses;. Very cool. If I can be bothered I will try to find them and post a pic...but yes,the picture in the OP is a crinoid.

About 10 or more years ago they did find out carbon dating was wrong.
Some ne got tree rings from all over and fossil tree rings.
Then put them all together. And had a ver good way to date things.
Just carbon date one of the old fossil tree rings.
So now we know carbon dating is ok to use.

Originally posted by Signals
I love ooparts!

So far I am convinced they are the result of either

A) time travel

or

B) seriously flawed dating techniques...what if carbon 14 dating is totally bogus?

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
What people don't notice, about theories on evolution, or dating of Homo Sapiens in the archaeological field, is that if this world is millions of years old, the bone structure of H. Sapiens has not changed for 100K years. Theoretically, if they are the same for 100K, and we only have proof of real civilization for the past 30K, why in the world didn't they do it before then, since we are the same creatures, today, that they were then?

That's rarely, if ever, addressed.

It is addressed quite easily actually. There were not as many humans to put their collective brains together and come up with inventions in the early days of modern homo sapien. Modern humans had to breed their (our) way to dominance.

Agriculture also allowed people to settle down, stop worrying about gathering food, and focus their minds.

Oh yeah--how many more times will somebody have to say that Carbon Dating is not used on rocks? And nobody is going to use Carbon Dating to get the age of something this old.

reply to post by stereologist


But we look at civilization like it's evolved behavior, and if we've not changed in all that time, then we could have done it back then (which doesn't make these 2 statements contradictory, at this point). Where the problem lies is when we look at the beginning of civilization, and we often assume that these people were "less advanced". Genetically, they were not--and that's something that is missed.

reply to post by Signals


You don't have to ask what if; It is bogus...The method is flawed, and produces inaccurate dating.

Claim CD011: Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results. Source: Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982). Response: Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294). In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).

reply to post by Signals


You can only Carbon date living things.

i.e: they breathed or consumed Carbon products when they were alive. When they died, they stopped and so we can date the Carbon 14 isotope (which has a known half-life) by its abundance in the organisms remains.

We can't Carbon-date stuff that didn't imbibe Carbon.

I remember scientists dating a shell fish at 30 000 years of age, while the shell fish was still alive

The science of dating fossils and rocks is not a science, more a guesstemation than a science
Anybody who knows science knows that as fact.

www.angelfire.com...

reply to post by cerebralassassins



Really... Who would believe this to be 300 million years old? Carbon dating sucks! Those Russian scientists should no better than to trust the carbon dating. Especially if there is no other evidence to back up the contaminated screwed rock.

reply to post by cerebralassassins

Just because the Rock is 300 Million Years old does not mean the carving is. I Have Marble Tile in my Home that is just as old if not more...yet it was cut into squares a few years back. Split Infinity

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Where the problem lies is when we look at the beginning of civilization, and we often assume that these people were "less advanced".

That argument is commonly used by fringe authors to claim that humans did not build the pyramids or whatever. People have been intelligent for a long time. They are inventive and resourceful and have been able to solve difficult problems often with what today would be considered low tech methods.

If a group of people leaves no traces other than building foundations and stone tools we consider them a culture and not a civilization. We do not see them except through materials that have lasted. For example, one of the most common tools used by Native Americans was a tool to pick up hot rocks to drop into food containers to cook meals. None of the devices has lasted to the present time, but they are known to have existed from Europeans that recorded the actions of the cooks. The reason is that these were made of materials that decomposed and they were common tools that were not saved or buried with the dead.

Gawd, some of you are unbelieveable! Anything that cannot be explained is automatically put in the hoax bin or debunked.

No wonder Mankind is so damn stupid but what can I say when so few Earth men can use 10% of their brain!

What are the odds of them making an extraordinary find such as this?

I enjoy posts like this. I'll bet Michael Cremo would love this aritifact!

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Gawd, some of you are unbelieveable! Anything that cannot be explained is automatically put in the hoax bin or debunked.

No wonder Mankind is so damn stupid but what can I say when so few Earth men can use 10% of their brain!

Agreed!

I think there are members who enjoy debunking threads. No I know there are members who do nothing but try to debunk threads.

If I were you I would have ended my post with a or a .

Originally posted by 3l3v3n
What are the odds of them making an extraordinary find such as this?

Well, if its there to be found? 100% eventually.... Maybe 100's of years or in this case, maybe millions. Who knows? I sure don't..but it's neat to imagine and like Blue said above, are we REALLY to the point now of anything we can't explain or understand from inside our offices and at our keyboards, is to be trashed and discarded as "disinfo", 'lies' or a hoax? Yikes! That's kinda narrow on the horizons isn't it? I mean...how many of us are metallurgists or geologists by profession to even have the practical expertise to call it outright false?

I'm also really amused here by the continued insistence it's a fossil. Are we just kinda assuming Russians breed mental midgets and they didn't run a metal scan over this to see it IS actually METAL and not possibly the fossilized organics of a long dead critter? Maybe I'm totally out of my league now..and someone will surely tell me if that holds no water as a point.

However, the one before that is hard to throw aside. What happened to possibly even leaving some things we cannot explain as just that? Unexplained? It seems everything must be either fully explained (even if Aliens are the agreed cause) or declared Hoax..either deliberate or not. Well.. heck.. I say there are more options on a story like this. Just one bunny's thoughts while taking a break here.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


You also forgot to mention that carbon dating does not work on rocks but on the organic compounds found in the same strata near the discovery...

Sedimentary rock can have they age estimated.

reply to post by cerebralassassins


Hmmmmm.

I'm gonna read the feed to see if anyone has any intelligent response to the serious question. Because I too would like an answer to that.

300 Million Years Old ?