Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TheCosmicMind

Ice Age Civilization

696 posts in this topic

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Obviously. I never said otherwise.

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".

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

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

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

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.