695 replies to this topic

[Jinxdom]

Um so I just read that radiometric dating thing, I just got few questions so my head doesn't pop.

Isn't that the exact reason why we have different ways of dating things to begin with? I'm not a scientist but it seems pretty simple of an idea that rocks(magma, or whatever materials) that were here before the formation of some area would in fact be a crap ton older then whatever it made(Like a mountain or volcano).

Wouldn't a straight up comparison be pointless because of factors like that? Which is exactly the reason why Scientists with half a brain developed more then one way to age something to take this stuff in to account in the first place? Wouldn't this be more of a common sense thing then an education thing?

Mental note never reading a creationist site ever again. At least the naked crazy homeless guy never made my head hurt when I listened to him.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Jinxdom, on 08 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Um so I just read that radiometric dating thing, I just got few questions so my head doesn't pop.

Isn't that the exact reason why we have different ways of dating things to begin with? I'm not a scientist but it seems pretty simple of an idea that rocks(magma, or whatever materials) that were here before the formation of some area would in fact be a crap ton older then whatever it made(Like a mountain or volcano).

Wouldn't a straight up comparison be pointless because of factors like that? Which is exactly the reason why Scientists with half a brain developed more then one way to age something to take this stuff in to account in the first place? Wouldn't this be more of a common sense thing then an education thing?

Mental note never reading a creationist site ever again. At least the naked crazy homeless guy never made my head hurt when I listened to him.

Dating process and radiometric curve pretty much seem like circular reasoning.You should look more deeply into the process.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 08 November 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Why do I think I'm a Hindu... I am well aware it isn't race. It's a culture; an ideology. One which I subscribe to; ergo, I'm a Hindu.



If you're referring to Cremo, he isn't a "credible Vedic scholar". And incidentally, I was born into a Christian family, and not in India. Your talent at making unfounded assumptions is nothing short of remarkable.



Wow, so science isn't scientific enough for you now? Pity...

Then again, you've made it overwhelmingly clear you don't understand science in the first place; so I'm not terribly surprised.



Yes, science is intolerant; not all ideas are created equal, my fellow Hindu. And yes, atheists can be Hindu; I am both, incidentally: an atheistic Hindu. I also consider myself a Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist, Confucianist, etc.... Though Hindu is my technical grouping.

Science is intolerant?? probably real science is intolerant to unempirical assumptions like macroevolution.
Never refered to Cremo as a vedic scholar.The link i gave was Wikipedia.
Let me get this clearly you were born in a Christian family and not in India and you do not ascribe to Vedic mythology or to Vedic scripture and their interpretations by Hindu Vedic scholars and you do not beleive in god i.e you are an atheist.
I am wondering what makes you a Hindu,since the vedic culture and values are based on Vedic mythology and scripture and you clearly do not ascribe to it.
The only conclusion that i can reach is that you are a hippy atheist evolutionist who claims he is a Hindu.
Are you a hindu because you like to celebrate Hindu festivals or are you a Hindu because you like to do Yoga?I don't get you.Though you can be a Hindu without ascribing to anything but i have a doubt that you are a atheist trying to disguise it by calling yourself a Hindu.

The religions you named are mostly based on transcdental meditation and being enlightened/aware of your consciousness...........but empirical science can't prove that there is a 'consciousness' seperate from the self,so are you being unscientific?

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Science is intolerant?? probably real science is intolerant to unempirical assumptions like macroevolution.

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.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Never refered to Cremo as a vedic scholar.The link i gave was Wikipedia.

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?

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Let me get this clearly you were born in a Christian family and not in India and you do not ascribe to Vedic mythology or to Vedic scripture and their interpretations by Hindu Vedic scholars and you do not beleive in god i.e you are an atheist.

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?

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

I am wondering what makes you a Hindu,since the vedic culture and values are based on Vedic mythology and scripture and you clearly do not ascribe to it.

Again, I do subscribe to it.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

The only conclusion that i can reach is that you are a hippy atheist evolutionist who claims he is a Hindu.
Are you a hindu because you like to celebrate Hindu festivals or are you a Hindu because you like to do Yoga?I don't get you.Though you can be a Hindu without ascribing to anything but i have a doubt that you are a atheist trying to disguise it by calling yourself a Hindu.

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.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

The religions you named are mostly based on transcdental meditation and being enlightened/aware of your consciousness...........but empirical science can't prove that there is a 'consciousness' seperate from the self,so are you being unscientific?

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.

[Harsh86_Patel]

check post number 642 where i have given a wiki link on hindu cosmology.
Please go through the link and then provide us your perspective of vedic texts and mythology.
Cremo might not be a vedic scholar but he actually adheres to vedic mythology in his thought process and approach.
Mind-Body problems....lol but then if you bleive in a seperate consciousness then i wil repeat a question i asked you way before in our conversation that how did the Mind/Consciousness evolve? (you dismissed it last time hope you will give it more thought this time around).
Science finds it difficult toi accept the concept of consciousness seperate from the Body,accepting an entitiy like consciousness or soul etc opens a whole pandoras box.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

check post number 642 where i have given a wiki link on hindu cosmology.
Please go through the link and then provide us your perspective of vedic texts and mythology.

The claimed "Vedic cosmology" are open to interpretation; it isn't as if the Vedas give a Wikipedia article explaining things like that. The articles you've posted are singular interpretations; and ones which are not supported by science.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Cremo might not be a vedic scholar but he actually adheres to vedic mythology in his thought process and approach.

Which is a bias; ergo, not scientific.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Mind-Body problems....lol but then if you bleive in a seperate consciousness then i wil repeat a question i asked you way before in our conversation that how did the Mind/Consciousness evolve? (you dismissed it last time hope you will give it more thought this time around).

That question is no less ridiculous now than it was the last time you asked it.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Science finds it difficult toi accept the concept of consciousness seperate from the Body,accepting an entitiy like consciousness or soul etc opens a whole pandoras box.

Not really... To some degree, perhaps, but many scientists already entertain such notions.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 12 November 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

The claimed "Vedic cosmology" are open to interpretation; it isn't as if the Vedas give a Wikipedia article explaining things like that. The articles you've posted are singular interpretations; and ones which are not supported by science.



Which is a bias; ergo, not scientific.



That question is no less ridiculous now than it was the last time you asked it.



Not really... To some degree, perhaps, but many scientists already entertain such notions.

Oh so now you do acknowledge that many things are open to interpretation.

I don't think Cremo has alleged anything which is not 'scientific' persay.He has put up a very viable and credible interpretation of various anthropological finds in his book 'Forbidden Archeology' which do concur with some Hindu beliefs of man being way older then thought by the mainstream.

Many scientists entertaining a notion doesn't make it scientific,same can be said about evolution.Having a consciousness seperate from the body does need a credible naturalistic explanation for it to  be accepted as scientific doesn't it? Hence i asked that whats your take on evolution of 'consciousness'?

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Oh so now you do acknowledge that many things are open to interpretation.

Obviously. I never said otherwise.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

I don't think Cremo has alleged anything which is not 'scientific' persay.He has put up a very viable and credible interpretation of various anthropological finds in his book 'Forbidden Archeology' which do concur with some Hindu beliefs of man being way older then thought by the mainstream.

I have never met any Hindu (apart from you) who believes mankind to be any older than science has proven it is. And no, Cremo's interpretations are not, in any way, "viable and credible".

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Many scientists entertaining a notion doesn't make it scientific,same can be said about evolution.Having a consciousness seperate from the body does need a credible naturalistic explanation for it to  be accepted as scientific doesn't it? Hence i asked that whats your take on evolution of 'consciousness'?

My views on consciousness are irrelevant to evolution, science, or anything else. You firstly presume that, if indeed conscious is separate from the body (which it may or may not be), that the biological principle of evolution would apply to it. An utter non-sequitur. And incidentally, yes, scientists accepting and/or verifying a hypothesis via the scientific method is the very definition of science (to a degree).

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

Though i don't believe that the world is just 6000 years old,i also believe that the dating methods are not accurate.The link below gives a list of assumptions:
http://www.earthage....f the Earth.htm

Creationists generally believe the dating methods are not accurate. They can't explain why, nor can they coherently refute the science behind the methodology, they seem just to pretend "it's all wrong." I'm not necessarily describing you so much as I'm describing many creationists I've encountered in our museum galleries, and my experiences with them. However, whatever variety of it you may be, Harsh, you've definitively demonstrated in this thread that you're a creationist.

In any case, dating methods such as carbon 14, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, and uranium-lead have been employed by a great many scientists in labs all over the world for decades now, and their findings concur with one another in the vast majority of cases. The isotope decay and other factors behind the science do not change because these things are locked geologically, but the instrumentation and methodologies have been enhanced and refined through the years. In the real world we see the science becoming only more sophisticated and more reliable. Creationists cannot stand against this, regardless of how many websites they slap together.

Quote

Though Hindus believe that the world and civilization is billions of years old approx 4.5/4.32 billion years old according to Vedic scriptures,way before modern radiometric techniques.

http://en.wikipedia....Hindu_cosmology

Actually it's my understanding that from the early times of its development, Hinduism holds that there are multiple cycles of creation and destruction, each lasting over 4 billion years. Given that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, this means Hinduism is even more off than Christianity, only in the other direction.

[Arbitran]

kmt_sesh, on 13 November 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Actually it's my understanding that from the early times of its development, Hinduism holds that there are multiple cycles of creation and destruction, each lasting over 4 billion years. Given that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, this means Hinduism is even more off than Christianity, only in the other direction.

To be fair, the Vedas speak of universes undergoing cyclical expansions and contractions; which is in a fact a scientific hypothesis. It is also noted as being a possibility, and that nobody actually knows where the universe came from. Just thought I'd note that. Otherwise you're spot-on, kmt_sesh.

[me-wonders]

How about if Gobeki Tepe is a map of the PLeiades, and proof of alien intervention with life on earth?

http://thehiddenreco...taurus-bull.php

The following quote is from Saru's thread "Is Structure in Cianjur Older Than Pyramids"

Quote

Carbon-dating test results from the Miami lab show that the structure could date back to 14,000 BC or beyond.

Here are the dates from Wikipedia for Godeki Tepe

Quote

http://en.wikipedia....i/Göbekli_Tepe

All statements about the site must be considered preliminary, as only about 5% of the site's total area has yet been excavated. Schmidt believes that the dig could well continue for another fifty years, "and barely scratch the surface."^[8] Floor levels have been reached in three of the Layer III enclosures; enclosure B contains a terrazzo-like floor; in enclosures C and D the floors were found to be natural bedrock, carefully smoothed. So far, excavations have revealed very little evidence for residential use. Through the radiocarbon method, the end of Layer III can be fixed at c. 9000 BCE (see above); its beginnings are estimated to 11,000 BCE or earlier. Layer II dates to about 8000 BCE.
Thus, the structures not only predate pottery, metallurgy, and the invention of writing or the wheel; they were built before the so-called Neolithic Revolution, i.e., the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry around 9000 BCE. But the construction of Göbekli Tepe implies organization of an order of complexity not hitherto associated with Paleolithic, PPNA, or PPNB societies. The archaeologists estimate that up to 500 persons were required to extract the heavy pillars from local quarries and move them 100–500 meters (330–1,640 ft) to the site.^[24] The pillars weigh 10–20 metric tons (10–20 long tons; 11–22 short tons); with one found still in its quarry weighing 50 tons.^[25] It is generally believed that an elite class of religious leaders supervised the work and later controlled whatever ceremonies took place here. If so, this would be the oldest known evidence for a priestly caste—much earlier than such social distinctions developed elsewhere in the Near East.^[8]
Around the beginning of the 8th millennium BCE "Potbelly Hill" lost its importance. The advent of agriculture and animal husbandry brought new realities to human life in the area, and the "stone-age zoo" (as Schmidt calls it) depicted on the pillars apparently lost whatever significance it had had for the region's older, foraging, communities. But the complex was not simply abandoned and forgotten to be gradually destroyed by the elements. Instead, each enclosure was deliberately buried under as much as 300 to 500 cubic meters (390 to 650 cu yd) of debris consisting mainly of small limestone fragments, stone vessels, and stone tools; many animal, even human, bones are also found in the burial refuse.^[26] Why the enclosures were backfilled is unknown, but it preserved them for posterity.

Isn't it curious that these enclosures were covered and preserved?  How different is the Gobeki Tepe complex compared to the Cianjur complex and the Mayan complexes built high in the mountains?

Here is the suggestion that an advnaced civilization in Bolvia could  be 14,000 years old  

Quote

http://www.viewzone.com/tiax.html
Ask most people who are the oldest civilization or where the oldest civilization lived and you'll here answers like Mesopotamia (Iraq), Egypt or Iran. While these cultures can be traced back to 4000 B.C., the mysterious ruins of Tiahuanaco, in Bolivia, could be 14,000 years old!

Have you wondered why these complexes are built at high altitudes where oxygon is thin?  I do.

Edited by me-wonders, 13 November 2012 - 06:23 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 06 November 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

You wish..............but your statement does have a undertone of 'You missed me'.


http://www.trueorigin.org/

everything that you read in talk origins has been debunked multiple times.The above links will help you to judge for yourself.

I looked at what the author had to say of natural selection, the only thing he debunked was his comprehension skils.

http://www.trueorigi...rbtl.asp#chance

He tries to pretend the experts on evolution (why the hell is Arthur Koestler listed?) are saying natural selection is random or based on chance. If you read the ones who do talk of natural selection, they are saying the opposite.

Edited by Rlyeh, 14 November 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 13 November 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Creationists generally believe the dating methods are not accurate. They can't explain why, nor can they coherently refute the science behind the methodology, they seem just to pretend "it's all wrong." I'm not necessarily describing you so much as I'm describing many creationists I've encountered in our museum galleries, and my experiences with them. However, whatever variety of it you may be, Harsh, you've definitively demonstrated in this thread that you're a creationist.

In any case, dating methods such as carbon 14, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, and uranium-lead have been employed by a great many scientists in labs all over the world for decades now, and their findings concur with one another in the vast majority of cases. The isotope decay and other factors behind the science do not change because these things are locked geologically, but the instrumentation and methodologies have been enhanced and refined through the years. In the real world we see the science becoming only more sophisticated and more reliable. Creationists cannot stand against this, regardless of how many websites they slap together.



Actually it's my understanding that from the early times of its development, Hinduism holds that there are multiple cycles of creation and destruction, each lasting over 4 billion years. Given that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, this means Hinduism is even more off than Christianity, only in the other direction.

What i have demonstrated in this thread is that i have an open mind,not that i am a creationist.
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.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). 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.
I am a great fan of science and frankly i beleive that if there is a way to enlightenment then it is through science and knowledge.But sadly there are many things that are actually assumptions and are disguised by the word 'scientific' when they are not.
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.

[Marks_Thoughts]

We know that the straits of Bosphorus where Istanbul or Constantinople sit was once a plain, with no water flowing to or from the Mediterranean Sea. It is believed that at the end of the Ice Age that the waters rose in the Med until the land separating the Med from the Black Sea was eroded away. It is likely that the waters erupted into the Black Sea violently and very quickly. This is the possible origin of the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh and perhaps the origin of many of the flood myths from the early eras.
If there were villages and cities around the banks of the Black Sea prior to the flood from the Mediterranean they are now under a lot of water and silt. Evidence is sometimes found of those settlements when dredging is done.
Imagine the large lake where you've lived, fished and traveled your whole life suddenly rising by a meter or so per hour. You'd have to run, and run fast, to stay ahead of the rising sea level - not a good thing. And, if you were anywhere close to the breakage point you'd be in a world of hurt. It would certainly spawn legends and myths.
Taking this one step further, some have proposed that the Mediterranean Sea itself was also the result of a cataclysmic flooding event. In this situation it was the Straits of Gibaltar that formed the blockage between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Again, imagine a much lower sea level on the Med side of Gibraltar, with villages and other settlements around the inland sea, a sea that could have been composed of fresh water and a bountiful source of foodstuffs as well. Suddenly, the earth and perhaps ice dam blocking the Atlantic gives way and the waters come rushing in.
Now you have a cascading set of floods, the Gibraltar flood and the Bosphorus flood that would provide a huge basis for legend and myth. Of course, if there were any evidences of civilization they would be under many meters of water and silt today.
The same kind of events were taking place all over the earth at the end of the Ice Age. Evidence of huge and cataclysmic floods can be found on any of the northern continents anyone cares to look at closely.

[me-wonders]

PersonFromPorlock, on 12 September 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

Something I'd like to throw in here... feral children - human children raised by animals - are a staple of fiction (Tarzan, Mowgli) but there are a few well-authenticated cases of real feral children. And in every case, children who were raised from infancy for several years by animals were mentally crippled. Intelligence, it seems, does not develop if there's no culture to support it.

So it's entirely possible that early h. sapiens, physically identical to us, may not have been very bright at all, until a culture had accrued that let him develop his mental potential. And that might have happened only recently.

Absolutely!  This is why I harp about education.

This morning I ordered several college courses from the Teaching Company.  Some are about how we learn and one is about our behavior, explained from the point of view of studying animals.  Hopefully in the future I will have more intelligent things to say, about what humans need to manifest a civilization we might value.   Especially feral children should cause us to think on what it means to be human, but they are not the only reason.  Children reared in poverty can appear retarded, and they have sure retarded if they experience long periods of malnutrition.   I mean, malnutrition can literally cause a brain problem and dull the intelligence.

Some primates are more capable than others at learning from us, and as we mess with them, and turn them back into the wild thinking we are doing a good thing to return them to nature, we are learning some cruel lessons.  Abandoning these animals may be no better than abandoning a human child.