Puzzling Ancient Artifacts

[XZeroII]

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm

Exerpt:

Impossible Fossils
Fossils, as we learned in grade school, appear in rocks that were formed many thousands of years ago. Yet there are a number of fossils that just don't make geological or historical sense. A fossil of a human handprint, for example, was found in limestone estimated to be 110 million years old. What appears to be a fossilized human finger found in the Canadian Arctic also dates back 100 to 110 million years ago. And what appears to be the fossil of a human footprint, possibly wearing a sandal, was found near Delta, Utah in a shale deposit estimated to be 300 million to 600 million years old.


How reliable are our current dating techniques if we are finding human fingers that are 100 million years old?

 

[Aimster]

Nice post



I wonder if this will change anything or will we simply just brush these findings aside.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

The artifact itself has been identified by experts as a 1920s-era Champion spark plug. Unfortunately, the Coso Artifact has gone missing and cannot be thoroughly examined. Is there a natural explanation for it? Or was it found, as the discoverer claimed, inside a geode? If so, how could a 1920s sparkplug get inside a 500,000-year-old rock?

A friend of mine had a saying (Well a question mostly): Why is it that the only people privy to this kind of information always seem to be unemployed, live in a trailer park and can't ever seem to keep from losing their (insert weird alien object description here) before anyone else can see it?

 

[Meuge]

Sorry, but that's just a bunch of BS.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are no fossils of humans beings because humans are only 6000 years old.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Sorry, but that's just a bunch of BS.

Why?

 

[Moonbeam]

I know that people anthropomorphisize almost everything they see because most people see an idiot when they think they are looking at me.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm

Exerpt:

Impossible Fossils
Fossils, as we learned in grade school, appear in rocks that were formed many thousands of years ago. Yet there are a number of fossils that just don't make geological or historical sense. A fossil of a human handprint, for example, was found in limestone estimated to be 110 million years old. What appears to be a fossilized human finger found in the Canadian Arctic also dates back 100 to 110 million years ago. And what appears to be the fossil of a human footprint, possibly wearing a sandal, was found near Delta, Utah in a shale deposit estimated to be 300 million to 600 million years old.


How reliable are our current dating techniques if we are finding human fingers that are 100 million years old?

I saw that fossil. It may very well be a dinosaur footprint, not a hand.

 

[jackschmittusa]

What findings? Every link on the pages is back to the same site. No original sources, no mention of peer review, and no mention of of any work to validate anything. I doubt they want anyone to do any real study of these "findings". Pretty hard to take with any level of seriousness.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Sorry, but that's just a bunch of BS.

Do some googling and you'll find that you are wrong.

 

[XZeroII]

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/pics/giants.html

While researching some of those, I came across this. Really cool!

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Meuge
Sorry, but that's just a bunch of BS.

Do some googling and you'll find that you are wrong.

I don't google scientific facts. If it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, then it's not good science, and is thus worthless.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Meuge
Sorry, but that's just a bunch of BS.

Do some googling and you'll find that you are wrong.

I don't google scientific facts. If it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, then it's not good science, and is thus worthless.

HAHAHAHA. Have a great life. I bet you believe everything the government tells you too! HAHAHA

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Meuge
I don't google scientific facts. If it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, then it's not good science, and is thus worthless.

HAHAHAHA. Have a great life. I bet you believe everything the government tells you too! HAHAHA

That comment made absolutely no sense... but as long as you're happy.

 

[sandorski]

this should be locked: pure flaimbait

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Meuge
Sorry, but that's just a bunch of BS.

Do some googling and you'll find that you are wrong.

Well if it is on a web page it must be true.

 

[UbiSunt]

The Antikythera Mechanism was supposed to be some sort of odometer, at least that's what the History Channel said, so it must be true! lol

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
How reliable are our current dating techniques if we are finding human fingers that are 100 million years old?

Let me ask YOU a question: The fact that AIDS tests have a false-positive rate of about a half percent, does that lead you to conclude that these tests are worthless or unreliable?

Or how about DNA analysis? The fact that there's a tiny chance that one person's DNA can be mistaken for another's, do you think that means that DNA fingerprinting is invalid?

So even if the erroneous dating you cite is true, why do you conclude that isolated errors invalidate all dating techniques? Do you understand that humans make errors, regardless of the validity of the methods?

To put this another way, with abundant evidence that dating techiques are quite accurate, and only rare (at best) evidence to the contrary, why do you side with the fringe events?

 

[OrByte]

Time travel is an awesome thing~!

 

[kogase]

Did you know that our understanding of delicious pastries is also woefully lacking? Although many so called "scientists" and "people" have claimed a tight authority over the realm of buttery bread products, several new discoveries have forced us to redefine our concept of the old pan du jour. For example, in 1997 it was discovered that the Virgin Mary blessed a low-fat croissant and the resulting loaf came out of the oven sligtly mishapen. In 1995 a strawberry struedel was baked at a temperature well below 50 degrees centigrade, yet came out a slightly overdone banana shortcake. And in 1957, well before either of the two former events, it was determined that a high gluten flour was incompatible with the common breakfast anchovie... yet the Japanese have continued to this day baking Anchovie and Pumpkin Lard Flakey Cakes.

And while many so called "mainstream" science publications have ignored these important discoveries, I ask you: how reliable are our baking techniques if we can't even decisively explain an Anchovie and Pumpkin Lard Flakey Cake?

 

[Meuge]

LOL

That is going in my vault.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: XZeroII
How reliable are our current dating techniques if we are finding human fingers that are 100 million years old?

Let me ask YOU a question: The fact that AIDS tests have a false-positive rate of about a half percent, does that lead you to conclude that these tests are worthless or unreliable?

Or how about DNA analysis? The fact that there's a tiny chance that one person's DNA can be mistaken for another's, do you think that means that DNA fingerprinting is invalid?

So even if the erroneous dating you cite is true, why do you conclude that isolated errors invalidate all dating techniques? Do you understand that humans make errors, regardless of the validity of the methods?

To put this another way, with abundant evidence that dating techiques are quite accurate, and only rare (at best) evidence to the contrary, why do you side with the fringe events?

Who said I was siding with anything? I was doing what every good scientist should do, question the world around them based on the evidence they see. Did I ever even IMPLY that we should abandon dating objects? Of course not. We should try to explain why these items are there and what the real story is so that we can make better guesses as to what the age of items are.

So many of you are typical sheep. You just believe anything that is said by major corporations (scientific journals are owned and run by corporations...or didn't you know that?) and you attack anyone who disagrees. Here are legitimate examples of anomolies that science has not explained, yet they are just ignored. We cover them up and look for more evidence that the status quo is right.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Meuge
I don't google scientific facts. If it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, then it's not good science, and is thus worthless.

HAHAHAHA. Have a great life. I bet you believe everything the government tells you too! HAHAHA

That comment made absolutely no sense... but as long as you're happy.

It makes perfect sense to those who do not believe everything that the media tells them. Have a blissfully ignorant life.

 

[Meuge]

Last time I checked, peer-reviewed scientific journals != media

 

[ScoobMaster]

1. The grooved spheres:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html

The Dropa Stones

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa032601a.htm

The Ica Stones

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

The Antikythera Mechanism

http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~tony/whatsnew/column/antikytheraI-0400/kyth1.html

The Bagdhad Battery

http://www.smith.edu/hsc/museum/ancient_inventions/battery2.html

The Coso Artifact

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

Ancient Aircraft

http://www.skepdic.com/vondanik.html

Stone Balls

http://www.ukans.edu/~hoopes/balls/

Impossible Fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html