695 replies to this topic

[me-wonders]

Arbitran, on 09 November 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

Yes, science is intolerant to unsubstantiated claims; evolutionary biology is the antithesis of an unsubstantiated claim. It is, in point of fact, the single most-substantiated scientific theory in history.



You didn't give any link at all. And yes, in the past, you have referred to Cremo as a Vedic scholar. What, you're going to backpedal now?



Yes, I am an atheist; you've previously said, and I agreed with you, that an atheist can be a Hindu. Where is your quarrel?

And incidentally, I do subscribe to Vedic texts and culture; just because my interpretations do not match yours do not make them wrong. Now who is being intolerant, hmm?



Again, I do subscribe to it.



And what makes you a Hindu, exactly? Believing guys like Cremo, who claim to represent the be-all-end-all of Hinduism? I'm a Hindu because I subscribe to Vedic culture and texts; I was a Hindu before I was an atheist, incidentally. I do practice yoga, although I've never much been one for the festivals; they seem rather impractical to me.



You clearly haven't read any of the scientific literature that's been published on the matter of the mind-body problem; there's a great deal of it. In any case, we're extremely off-topic now.

You are having an interesting debate, and perhaps it would make a good thread?   I have wondered if Vedic script and the bible record alien intervention?

When speaking of Hinduism this involves many different ideas, different creation stories, and even different cultures.  It is not "God's truth" like the Old and New Testaments and Koran.  Whatever, what does religion have to do with Ice Age Civilizations?  I can see where talk of alien intervention could fit into this subject, but isn't religion a different subject?

[Arbitran]

me-wonders, on 16 November 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

You are having an interesting debate, and perhaps it would make a good thread?   I have wondered if Vedic script and the bible record alien intervention?

When speaking of Hinduism this involves many different ideas, different creation stories, and even different cultures.  It is not "God's truth" like the Old and New Testaments and Koran.  Whatever, what does religion have to do with Ice Age Civilizations?  I can see where talk of alien intervention could fit into this subject, but isn't religion a different subject?

It is indeed a different subject; why on earth he thought it necessary to bring it up is beyond me. Well, the fact that the past thirty-five pages or so have been me and him debating evolutionary biology (my field, incidentally), when it has nothing whatsoever to do with ice age civilization, is also unexplained.

To speak briefly (very briefly) on the topic of extraterrestrials in the Vedic literatures, I do think that there are; in abundance. It is very clear in the text that a number of the devas (meaning literally: 'heavenly ones', or 'ones who have come from the universe'; alternately it can be translated as 'knowledgeable ones', 'enlightened ones', or 'ones who have knowledge of the universe') hail from different worlds, orbiting different stars in the cosmos. My recent research on the matter has led me to speculate that perhaps at least a portion of the events which took place in the ancient past, as recorded in the Vedas, might have taken place in virtual environments; it is thought that a civilization which has undergone a technological singularity would have virtual reality and mixed, augmented reality which was indistinguishable from "real" reality, and that they might, in many ways, perpetually exist in a halfway state between "real" and "virtual" realities, though the two, by that time in technological development, would likely not need to be distinguished. At what point does one go from saying "this is a simulated universe, it's only virtual" to "this is a universe created inside of a computer"? It's hard to say. But there are a great many suggestions in the Vedas that the culture of the ancient past, whether strictly extraterrestrial, fictional, real, human, or otherwise, was in no small part a virtual one. I cannot say whether the Vedas are true, or whether they are ancient science-fiction, or anything like that; they fascinate me nonetheless.

In any case... I digress. Just a thought. Speculation is always needed when referring to such ancient and mysterious things.

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 16 November 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

What i have demonstrated in this thread is that i have an open mind,not that i am a creationist.

All through this debate you've ardently tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to rebuff practically every scientific point standing in favor of evolution and other standard principles. The majority of your web links and other sources have had a clear creationist agenda. I don't know you personally, of course, but based on everything you've written in this debate, Harsh, I can't help but regard you as a creationist. What other choice do I have?

Quote

The question is not about the instrument used in the radiometric dating process but about the caliberation of the dating curve where errors can creep in.

Calibration is a standard and essential component of all of the scientific dating methods of which I'm aware. It has been from the beginning.

Quote

There are so many things we don't know completely like why hasn't the radio carbon  to regular carbon ratio in Earth's atmosphere not yet stabilised (since it is supposed to stabilize in 30,000 years after it's creation).

I don't know what you mean by "stabilize." Nevertheless, the varying ratios of the C14 isotope in the atmosphere is something that was recognized and addressed early in the process of developing the dating method. It's well understood, and to that end I would suggest you research why such things as calibration with dendrochronology have become standard in the methodology of C14 dating.

Quote

There are many assumptions and quite a few unexpected results while employing the dating technique,for eg-a fresh banana was dated to 1500 B.C. etc.These results are usually discarded and the results are attributed to contamination etc.

If by "fresh" you mean a banana that was purchased this morning and then subjected to C14 dating, there are two explanations for the conundrum you mention. The first and most likely is that the source you cited is incorrect and should not be taken seriously. The second, and less plausible, is that the sample was corrupted.

A banana or other modern living thing cannot be carbon dated. It would zero out because its C14 isotopes would still be intact. The time period for establishing "modern" in this sense is 1950. Scientists would not waste their time trying to carbon date a fresh banana unless their equipment is faulty and they're trying to figure out how to fix it, or they want to show college freshman what conclusions will be reached when you subject something with no isotope decay to the dating method.

The half life for the C14 isotope has been fixed at 5,730 years, which is why I'm wondering where you got your source about the fresh banana. It doesn't make sense. These things were figured out well before you and I were born (with the exception of the half life, which has been refined through the decades). Scientists have faced this before. For one of his first tests, Willard Libby used a money box loaned to him by an Egyptologist in Chicago. This money box was supposed to have dated to the Ptolemaic Period of Egypt, meaning between 332 and 30 BCE. The prior two tests had been conducted on samples of wood from Dynasty 3 tombs, so Libby was hoping to use something a bit more "modern." Libby and his team were near heart-broken when their sample from the money box zeroed out. They thought their C14 process was a failure—until the Egyptologist who had loaned them the money box admitted he had bought it from an antiquities dealer in a Cairo marketplace. After that fake had been discarded, however, Libby and his team experienced only more successes...and the same is true to this day.

A good example for the veracity of C14 dating is the extensive testing conducted in two different analyses on Old and Middle Kingdom monuments from pharaonic Egypt. The report is available online. The conclusions established that the Great Pyramid, for example, might be a century or so older than we've always thought, but that's not surprising.

The science is solid. Creationists have never been able to show otherwise. And in my personal experience, it's only creationists who try to show otherwise. I'm not sure what your own motivations might be, but like I said, you seem like a creationist, yourself.

Quote

Regarding Hinduism and multiple cycles or Yugas and day of Brahma and night of Brahma,dont you think that the Earth being 4.5 billion years old is pretty much in line with Hindu mythology? According to Vedic mythology we are now in the Day of Brahma which is approx 4.5 billion years after which will proceed the night of Brahma when the world becomes unmanifest for 4.5 billion years and then again it is followed by the Day of Brahma.I don't think that there is any contradiction in scientific facts and this Mythological information.

No, I don't think Hinduism is in line with science. No religious system truly is. Mind you, I am not out to denigrate any belief system, and I am not even an atheist myself—but science and religion rarely mix well. They each have vastly different purposes. And like I said, Hinduism holds in the belief of repeating periods lasting several billion years each, so if we look at it from that perspective, Hinduism is even farther from the facts than Christianity is.

[me-wonders]

I started a thread for the vedic argument.  The ice age pushed the Aryan people from the north, into Persia, and then they migrated to Hindus valley.  There is a debate if the Hindu religion originated with the natives of the Hindus valley or if it is Aryan.

[Swede]

kmt_sesh, on 31 October 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

Swede, best wishes on your research. You will be missed...so hurry back, dammit!

Kmt - Reporting for duty as requested! My thanks for your kind wishes. The research has been going well, despite the rather usual minor complications.

.

[Swede]

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Thank you for defining regime.That is exactly the context in which i used the word when i said 'evolutionist world view regime' that is sadly dominating the current Biological Academia.

Observed empirical evidence works perfectly for genetics and almost all other feilds of real science other then for the two black sheep that i mentioned in my previous post to Tran and few other psuedosciences.

And it is good to know that such intelligent minds like yours are given reseach grants to do research,hope it's not for the elusive empirical proof for macroevolution.

Any which ways best of luck for your research and remember with great amount of research grants comes great scientific responsibility.

Re: Regime - Your response to this aspect could be read by some as bordering on the delusional. Are you truly under the impression that a militaristic-like structure somehow "governs" the biological sciences?

Re: Genetics - As you admit, genetic research is both observable and empirical. And volumes of genetic research (in minimum, previously presented) support evolutionary theory. One can not choose to acknowledge the validity of a field of research and then subjectively reject the results of that field of research because they do not agree with certain preconceived personal beliefs.

Re: Grants - Once again, you make bold and uninformed statements. The current studies are not funded by grant monies. In fact, in my entire scientific career(s), there was only a single occasion when grant monies were involved. And this was a very small grant that covered part of the travel expenses of a much larger project.

Given that there is abundant empirical evidence for "macroevolution" (as previously presented/defined), "elusive" may not be the most accurate description of current understandings.

Thank you for your kind wishes and rest assured that the research undertaken by myself and my colleagues is treated with great seriousness due to both professional standards and the effects of the research on a notably wider range of factors.

.

[Swede]

Harsh86_Patel, on 16 November 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

caliberation of the dating curve where errors can creep in.

As previously noted by Kmt, the calibration of ¹⁴C dating has been ongoing for over 50 years. This research, utilizing a number of data bases/sets, has increasingly refined the accuracy of ¹⁴C dating. You will gain insight into this factor by a thorough reading of the most current Intcal report:

http://researchcommo...C5ED?sequence=1

Should you wish to run a test calibration of your own:

http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/download/

Also bear in mind that the increasing refinement of AMS and its application to specific collagen proteins (as per some of the research by Rafter) has added additional detail.

This most recent study by Oxford (below) will almost undoubtedly be incorporated into upcoming Intcal data:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/...sts/121019.html

.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 17 November 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

All through this debate you've ardently tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to rebuff practically every scientific point standing in favor of evolution and other standard principles. The majority of your web links and other sources have had a clear creationist agenda. I don't know you personally, of course, but based on everything you've written in this debate, Harsh, I can't help but regard you as a creationist. What other choice do I have?



Calibration is a standard and essential component of all of the scientific dating methods of which I'm aware. It has been from the beginning.



I don't know what you mean by "stabilize." Nevertheless, the varying ratios of the C14 isotope in the atmosphere is something that was recognized and addressed early in the process of developing the dating method. It's well understood, and to that end I would suggest you research why such things as calibration with dendrochronology have become standard in the methodology of C14 dating.



If by "fresh" you mean a banana that was purchased this morning and then subjected to C14 dating, there are two explanations for the conundrum you mention. The first and most likely is that the source you cited is incorrect and should not be taken seriously. The second, and less plausible, is that the sample was corrupted.

A banana or other modern living thing cannot be carbon dated. It would zero out because its C14 isotopes would still be intact. The time period for establishing "modern" in this sense is 1950. Scientists would not waste their time trying to carbon date a fresh banana unless their equipment is faulty and they're trying to figure out how to fix it, or they want to show college freshman what conclusions will be reached when you subject something with no isotope decay to the dating method.

The half life for the C14 isotope has been fixed at 5,730 years, which is why I'm wondering where you got your source about the fresh banana. It doesn't make sense. These things were figured out well before you and I were born (with the exception of the half life, which has been refined through the decades). Scientists have faced this before. For one of his first tests, Willard Libby used a money box loaned to him by an Egyptologist in Chicago. This money box was supposed to have dated to the Ptolemaic Period of Egypt, meaning between 332 and 30 BCE. The prior two tests had been conducted on samples of wood from Dynasty 3 tombs, so Libby was hoping to use something a bit more "modern." Libby and his team were near heart-broken when their sample from the money box zeroed out. They thought their C14 process was a failure—until the Egyptologist who had loaned them the money box admitted he had bought it from an antiquities dealer in a Cairo marketplace. After that fake had been discarded, however, Libby and his team experienced only more successes...and the same is true to this day.

A good example for the veracity of C14 dating is the extensive testing conducted in two different analyses on Old and Middle Kingdom monuments from pharaonic Egypt. The report is available online. The conclusions established that the Great Pyramid, for example, might be a century or so older than we've always thought, but that's not surprising.

The science is solid. Creationists have never been able to show otherwise. And in my personal experience, it's only creationists who try to show otherwise. I'm not sure what your own motivations might be, but like I said, you seem like a creationist, yourself.



No, I don't think Hinduism is in line with science. No religious system truly is. Mind you, I am not out to denigrate any belief system, and I am not even an atheist myself—but science and religion rarely mix well. They each have vastly different purposes. And like I said, Hinduism holds in the belief of repeating periods lasting several billion years each, so if we look at it from that perspective, Hinduism is even farther from the facts than Christianity is.

I said it again and again that the only reason i gave referrences from creationist sites is because of the evolutionist mafia regime,no mainstream scientific magazine would publish such criticisms of evolution.This is clearly a case of 'who will tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes'.
I know that the varying c14 ratio in the atmosphere was recognized,but what i am trying to point out is that the c14 ratio should not be varying if the world is not less then 30000 years old.

[chopmo]

Wearer of Hats, on 25 August 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Anything is possible (except licking your elbow).
Given all we know about some of the ealier civilisations is what their conquerors tell us it's possible that the conquerors ended up the conquered and a legacy of desctruction ended with them with no trace of who they themselves conquered.

LMAO elbow...

Very true and this is the very spice of life that will drive people to explore untill the end of time.
Obsered to kinda say there wasn't really, if so lemme borrow your time machine when your finished being a jerkoff.

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 22 November 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

I said it again and again that the only reason i gave referrences from creationist sites is because of the evolutionist mafia regime,no mainstream scientific magazine would publish such criticisms of evolution.This is clearly a case of 'who will tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes'.

There is no "regime." There is only the scientific and the non-scientific. Creationism falls into the latter, without exception, start to finish. This is what happens when you try to force religious principles into the world of science, because religion is not a science and can never be.

Quote

I know that the varying c14 ratio in the atmosphere was recognized,but what i am trying to point out is that the c14 ratio should not be varying if the world is not less then 30000 years old.

I cannot expend further time debating this issue with you. You obviously don't understand the science behind C14 dating. I'd recommend Doug Macdougall's book Nature's Clocks. It explains C14 dating and other forms of dating in about as clear and concise terms as you'll find.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 23 November 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

There is no "regime." There is only the scientific and the non-scientific. Creationism falls into the latter, without exception, start to finish. This is what happens when you try to force religious principles into the world of science, because religion is not a science and can never be.



I cannot expend further time debating this issue with you. You obviously don't understand the science behind C14 dating. I'd recommend Doug Macdougall's book Nature's Clocks. It explains C14 dating and other forms of dating in about as clear and concise terms as you'll find.

I havn't used a single religious principle to criticize evolution,my objections are scientific in nature.Evolution does not conflict with the religion i follow.
I will go through the book you reccomend,if you promise to confirm the information regarding stabilization of the c14 ratio in the atmosphere.(Scientist claim that the ratio should have stabilised a long time ago i.e it should stabilise in 30000 years since the carbon was created).Try to figure out why it hasn't yet stabilzed.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 23 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I havn't used a single religious principle to criticize evolution,my objections are scientific in nature.Evolution does not conflict with the religion i follow.
I will go through the book you reccomend,if you promise to confirm the information regarding stabilization of the c14 ratio in the atmosphere.(Scientist claim that the ratio should have stabilised a long time ago i.e it should stabilise in 30000 years since the carbon was created).Try to figure out why it hasn't yet stabilzed.

We don't have to figure out why C14 hasn't stabilized as in order to do so that would mean that no more C14 is being created. Which runs contrary to the fact that C14 is created in the upper atmosphere and has never stopped doing so.

cormac

[Swede]

Harsh86_Patel, on 22 November 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

I said it again and again that the only reason i gave referrences from creationist sites is because of the evolutionist mafia regime,no mainstream scientific magazine would publish such criticisms of evolution.This is clearly a case of 'who will tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes'.
I know that the varying c14 ratio in the atmosphere was recognized,but what i am trying to point out is that the c14 ratio should not be varying if the world is not less then 30000 years old.

Am quite unsure as to the rationale behind this statement. ¹⁴C is the product of the interaction of cosmic rays (and to a lesser degree, solar radiation) with the nitrogen isotope ¹⁴N. These interactions occur (primarily) in the upper atmosphere. Due to both cyclical events (such as solar cycles) and less cyclical events (such as a supernova), the production rate of ¹⁴C is not constant. ¹⁴C production is also affected by changes in the earths magnetic field and its distribution is affected by the carbon cycle. Thus, one would predictably expect some degree of variance in the levels of ¹⁴C available for organic absorption. And this is the case. To quote:

There are four main factors that can
influence atmospheric 14C concentration:
primary cosmic ray flux, strength of the
solar electromagnetic field, terrestrial magnetic
field intensity, and the structure of the
carbon cycle (42– 45). The first three of
these factors control the atmospheric 14C
production rate, whereas the fourth factor
controls the distribution of 14C between the
various carbon reservoirs. Highly energetic
galactic cosmic rays (GCR) account for
most terrestrial 14C production, although
solar cosmic rays can account for a few
percent of total production during brief periods
of unusually energetic solar flare
events (42, 46). Although variation in GCR
flux or energy spectra is one potential
source of the observed variations in atmospheric
D14C, it is generally thought to
have remained fairly constant except on
very long time scales (.106 years) (46).
Electromagnetic fields associated with the
Sun and solar wind and the terrestrial magnetic
field intensity both modulate atmospheric
14C production by attenuating the
amount of GCR reaching Earth’s atmosphere
through a number of scattering
mechanisms (47, 48). These solar effects
are modulated on the 11-year sunspot cycle
(49, 50) as well as several other longer
cycles (51, 52), which can produce about a
factor of two variation in atmospheric 14C
production (53), with more production occurring
during periods of low solar activity.
For the normal range in cosmic ray energies
incident on Earth’s atmosphere, the globally
integrated 14C production rate also varies
approximately in proportion to the inverse
square root of Earth’s magnetic field intensity
[except at low geomagnetic field intensity
where this relation diverges (42, 43)].
At least a twofold variability in global 14C production rate can be explained by the
range of dipole magnetic field intensities
during the past 50 ka (42, 43). (Beck, et. al. 2001:2455) (Emphasis added).

Am equally unsure in regards to your reference to the 30k figure.

.

[kmt_sesh]

cormac mac airt, on 23 November 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

We don't have to figure out why C14 hasn't stabilized as in order to do so that would mean that no more C14 is being created. Which runs contrary to the fact that C14 is created in the upper atmosphere and has never stopped doing so.

cormac

I honestly don't think Harsh understand the principle of the C14 isotope. This idea of "stabilization" is a good example. What does that even mean? I've gotten frustrated trying to explain C14 dating to Harsh, so I don't know how much more would be worth the effort on my part. Harsh needs to do at least some basic research on the issue, and needs to use legitimate scientific sources to do this research. Swede's preceding post is particularly helpful, I think, in explaining how the C14 isotope can and has varied in the atmosphere down through time. It can be affected by numerous influences, which is why the amount of C14 one finds in an organic artifact from 3000 BCE might represent a different level of C14 availability than might an organic artifact from 15,000 BCE.

I don't know, the fault might be mine in not explaining it well enough, but how in the hell is C14 supposed to stabilize?

[cormac mac airt]

kmt_sesh, on 25 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I honestly don't think Harsh understand the principle of the C14 isotope. This idea of "stabilization" is a good example. What does that even mean? I've gotten frustrated trying to explain C14 dating to Harsh, so I don't know how much more would be worth the effort on my part. Harsh needs to do at least some basic research on the issue, and needs to use legitimate scientific sources to do this research. Swede's preceding post is particularly helpful, I think, in explaining how the C14 isotope can and has varied in the atmosphere down through time. It can be affected by numerous influences, which is why the amount of C14 one finds in an organic artifact from 3000 BCE might represent a different level of C14 availability than might an organic artifact from 15,000 BCE.

I don't know, the fault might be mine in not explaining it well enough, but how in the hell is C14 supposed to stabilize?

No the fault isn't yours, nor Swede's nor anyone elses other than Harsh who doesn't want to understand C14 dating. He wants to present it as something it's not, so he can play fast and loose with ancient history.

cormac