13,000 Year old temple,
- Thread starter HillBill
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Toddy, agree with you on the trading/learning concepts. The immediate assumption that it must be a temple highlights a curious disconnect between old world archaeology and new world archaeology.
In New World archeology, there is an acute attention to trading patterns and rendezvous points. Ancient Indian trails -- some hundreds of miles long and marked on either side with stones for their whole way -- show elaborate networks of stone age trade routes.
We know obsidian was traded from northern California all the way to Kentucky. Acorns and corn where traded vast distances too. New world archaeology always wonders about trading behavior.
But Old World archaeology sometimes strikes me as overly concerned with the establishing religious explanations to finds. The reason is obvious -- our extant faiths come from the region so studying how they arise is natural.
All the same, it would be wise to consider the other explanations -- trade, rendezvous -- at this site.
Besides, this is right in area the middle of where cro-magnon would have passed en route from to Europe from Africa, so people were traveling through here for 80,00 to 100,000 years. Why not an outpost? Why not a trading place?
Observing a virus over a short time can not even be compared imo.
I choose neither science or religon, for to choose either or both would be giving up my own opinions and experiences to someone elses of which i was never a part. If anything it is history to which i devote the most attention. More to the point the overall picture of the ancient world and each cultures beliefs. It is todays thinkings about those cultures which twists and distorts the storys they tell. All the old cultures tell the same story in their own way. Too many parallels for cultures so far spread apart. Either they speak what was once common knowledge worldwide, the people writing the texts all knew each other, or there was a hell of a lot more contact than we are being told or we know about.
"a short time" is a relative term, observeing bacteria over a few decade is a heck of a lot of generations.
What sort of a time scale would you regard as comparable and why?
Not trying to be provocative there ( incase it comes across like that in text ) just trying to find out if there's any good examples that would fulfil your criterea.
Not in the opinion of my father (Science Phd and science lecturer for his entire working life), one of my employees (Science Phd and lengthy time in research) and a number of colleagues with a variety of Masters and Doctorates.
You are however entitled to your beliefs.
I don't post to upset, merely to point out that an unquestioning belief in the word or concept of "science" is just as dangerous and probably more prevalent than an unquestioning belief in anything else - be it deity, pantheon or atheism.
I respect of course your beliefs and ask only that devotees of "science" show the same respect for other peoples
Red
True, Darwin's theory of evolution isn't observable phenomena. No theory is. However, all the observable phenomena support the theory. A theory is not a "glorified word." A theory is an explanation put forth to explain some observable phenomena. For a theory to be any good, other investigators must test the theory and see if it does in fact explain whatever phenomena was observed in the first place. Darwin's theory has stood the test of time and still offers an explanation that explains most of the observed phenomena. Darwin was unaware of the role of mutations and the so-called punctuated equilibrium. Yet none of these additional (and valid) ideas take anything away from his monumental study.
Not in the opinion of my father (Science Phd and science lecturer for his entire working life), one of my employees (Science Phd and lengthy time in research) and a number of colleagues with a variety of Masters and Doctorates.
You are however entitled to your beliefs.
I don't post to upset, merely to point out that an unquestioning belief in the word or concept of "science" is just as dangerous and probably more prevalent than an unquestioning belief in anything else - be it deity, pantheon or atheism.
I respect of course your beliefs and ask only that devotees of "science" show the same respect for other peoples
Red
That was fun.
I enjoy a debate with people who use reasoned arguments, even if they are misguided.
Bacteria is a different type of organism, so it probably has lots of differences in the way they do most things, also these tests and observations will be in lab conditions with optimal life supporting conditions to promote growth and reproduction for the purpose of the experiment. Taking a lead off of that and comparing it to how complex lifeforms will behave in random conditions is a huge leap.
We claim we can date things accurately with modern techniques, but who can prove it is accurate? Nobody can, a machine says it is, but no man or machine was there when a footprint was left or an animal died.
Going back to the bat example.
Today there are around 1100 species of bats.
Now to even come close to proving evoloution what you would have to do is take a date, say 5 million years ago. We may have 5 fossils of bats from around that era. Then from 4 million years ago we may have another 5 bats that are slightly different. Darwins theory is based on the samples that they have.
But to be even sure what you would have to do is find out how many species of bat there was 5 mil years ago, lets just say 500 for now, then find fossils of each species male and female.
Then find out the number of species from 4 million years ago, have a specimen male and female from each and compare. Only then will you even come close to understanding the evoloution of the bat.
But nothing else.
It is just nowhere near complete enough to even begin to accept it as anything other than an idea that sounds good supported by sketchy at best evidence.
Have you heard of a Liger? A lion and tiger cross that dwarfs both parents and looks different. Is this evoloution or just cross species breeding?
In 2012 we will go through a galactic alignment where we will have a clear view to the centre of the galaxy. In this time we will have no defence against the gamma rays etc that come from there as there is nothing to filter or block it and our magnetic field will be really low, some say we may even have a poleshift. Radiation like that has the potential to change or mutate anything it comes into contact with. Some say we evolve in 2012.
Radioactive dating of objects, such as carbon-14 is based on the known fact that radioactive isotopes decay away at a known rate. Each element used has a known half-life. Meaning that in a known, and unvarying time, one-half of the element is gone. In the same time frame another one-half of the remaining amount is gone, ad infinitum. Therefore, we can find any object that contains carbon and we know what the relationship between carbon-14 and the other isotopes of carbon is. Knowing that -- we know how much carbon-14 should be present. If less is present, we can caluclate, within a reasonable margin of error, the age of the object. It is all physics, chemistry, and mathematics. None of it is mumbo - jumbo, sleight of hand, or supposition.
My point is, how do they know that the isotopes dont degrade faster as time goes on. They can not have measured them for more than a certain period. That does not mean they behave the same 500 years down the line. They are just presuming it does.It may reach a certain point and degrade faster and with increasing speed or slower and nearly stop altogether. Its like saying it will always be sunny in august if they had monitored 50 augusts and they were all sunny
You must be kidding, right?
So by this standard you believe the world is flat, correct?
You have not directly experienced the globe as being round so you can only assume it's flat or else you have to take the experiences and opinions of others into account.
You have not directly experienced the sun as a star, therefore it might really be a flaming turtle crawling across the sky if you believe it to be so, right?
If you fall ill, I assume that you don't accept (tempered by reason and perhaps a second opinion) the doctor's experience that a given medicine will heal you because that means you'll be giving up your own opinions and experiences, right?
What you're saying isn't honest -- all of us accept other people's experience and views and wisdom on a daily basis. This is the great enterprise of civilization.
So just to be clear -- the real point is that you don't simply believe in evolution, right?
Bacterial evolution can and has been observered, over time, in the wild, though obviously it's easier to observe it under controlled conditions. So I'm guessing that for you it would require higher order lifeforms in a more naturally changed enviroment.
To jump to your last question, lions and tigers are generally only brought into close contact by us and are prevented from doing so natually by enviromental barriers.
Should some sort of major upheaveal come about and change that then, as the liger is proof that they can interbreed naturally. I guess if the liger is fertile and can breed with another liger then it could be thought of as an evolutionary step ( note not evey evolutionary step would have to be suceesful by that definition and it is only with hindsight that we generally judge something to be an evolutionary step forward )
If the liger is infertile I guess it'd be regarded as an F1 hybrid, much like a mule is. Though to be more exact a mule isn't necessarily infertile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertility In these cases similarly if they were in the wild and ( due to enviromental changes became seperated from the ability to breed back to an originationg morm ) ) became sucesful enough it could be considered the start of an evolutionary series of steps.
Rightly when they state dated objects they really should state with a certain percentage certainty and a error range, though adding those probably wouldn't make for good reading in popular magazines for those with only a passing interest.
The fossil records are only part of the evidence that supports Darwins theory, and though incomplete they certanly don't refute it.
Easy.
This can be handled by mathematical models, which have been tested by observation. Develope a model to test, make predictions against the model, test those predictions against actual observation. Rinse. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat until you get it right.
How threads digress 
Hillbill, I'll start with your notes about the fossil record, and how we assume the two samples are linked rather than seperate. This is because it is much more reasonable to believe that they are linked, rather than there have been loads of different types of humanoid animals and as soon as one mysteriously dies out, another springs out of nowhere. Occam's razor. That's like saying that people living in areas of high UV exposure are a different species than people living in areas of low UV exposure because their skin is darker, or that people living at high altitudes are a seperate species from those living at low altitudes because they have a higher lung capacity. You can't go from white to black in the space of a lifetime - they are evolutionary differences - same species, different breeds as it were, each adapted to the environment their ancestors made a home in. Do you have another explanation?
It's much more reasonable to assume that slight differences are through adaptation than to believe they are all completely seperate and somehow managed to be almost identical to however many other "seperate" species.
And about Quantum Physics - the only thing it shows as "wrong" is our perception that laws are absolute. The laws still stand the vast majority of the time - as far as what we can actually observe, it might as well be all the time - 99.9999999% at the very least. What Quantum Physics shows is that that tiny 0.00000001% does matter, particularly when you're dealing with things on a quantum level.
And the science faith thing - this is something I've been complaining about a lot recently so I may as well do it here too. Science IS the search for truth, but scientists are corruptable human beings and frequently try to prove their hypothesis right, rather than form a hypothesis and see if it pans out. It's worth noting that stuff like the theory of evolution were seriously "out there" back in the day - nobody can accurately say that it has not been tried and tested enough.
Pete
Hillbill, I'll start with your notes about the fossil record, and how we assume the two samples are linked rather than seperate. This is because it is much more reasonable to believe that they are linked, rather than there have been loads of different types of humanoid animals and as soon as one mysteriously dies out, another springs out of nowhere. Occam's razor. That's like saying that people living in areas of high UV exposure are a different species than people living in areas of low UV exposure because their skin is darker, or that people living at high altitudes are a seperate species from those living at low altitudes because they have a higher lung capacity. You can't go from white to black in the space of a lifetime - they are evolutionary differences - same species, different breeds as it were, each adapted to the environment their ancestors made a home in. Do you have another explanation?
It's much more reasonable to assume that slight differences are through adaptation than to believe they are all completely seperate and somehow managed to be almost identical to however many other "seperate" species.
And about Quantum Physics - the only thing it shows as "wrong" is our perception that laws are absolute. The laws still stand the vast majority of the time - as far as what we can actually observe, it might as well be all the time - 99.9999999% at the very least. What Quantum Physics shows is that that tiny 0.00000001% does matter, particularly when you're dealing with things on a quantum level.
And the science faith thing - this is something I've been complaining about a lot recently so I may as well do it here too. Science IS the search for truth, but scientists are corruptable human beings and frequently try to prove their hypothesis right, rather than form a hypothesis and see if it pans out. It's worth noting that stuff like the theory of evolution were seriously "out there" back in the day - nobody can accurately say that it has not been tried and tested enough.
Pete
I have travelled many places, i know the world is round.
You have not directly experienced the sun as a star either mate. But no neither do i believe it is a turtle
The only time i seek medical help in anything is when i need some form of op or the dentist. I never get ill though so i can't be doing bad. Everyone who i know who visits docs are poorly lots. My immune system does not need help because it has always had to fend for itself
What i'm saying isnt honest from the way you see the world mate, but you are not me you have had neither my life or my experiences. I make my own mind up. I think for myself, most do not anymore. I know most officials lie and order others to lie, i know its impossible to prove how old something is when it has only been measured in recent years and no one knows how it behaves outside of the measured timescale.
All they can do is presume, any intelligent person who thinks for themself can see that easily.
Then why did you post this thread saying it's a 13,000 year old temple? They said the dating was carbon dating. By your reckoning it could've been built in the 60s as a hippie commune...
The last statement is the classical argument, I guess; basically stating that anyone in disagreement with you is a stupid sheep.
How threads digress
Hillbill, I'll start with your notes about the fossil record, and how we assume the two samples are linked rather than seperate. This is because it is much more reasonable to believe that they are linked, rather than there have been loads of different types of humanoid animals and as soon as one mysteriously dies out, another springs out of nowhere. Occam's razor. That's like saying that people living in areas of high UV exposure are a different species than people living in areas of low UV exposure because their skin is darker, or that people living at high altitudes are a seperate species from those living at low altitudes because they have a higher lung capacity. You can't go from white to black in the space of a lifetime - they are evolutionary differences - same species, different breeds as it were, each adapted to the environment their ancestors made a home in. Do you have another explanation?
Pete
I'm not assuming one dies out and another comes forward, only that the fossil record is sketchy in comparison to the timescale involved. The different fossils we have only paint a picture of maybe 5 -10% of the overall and we are basing theories on incomplete data
Take chimps and orang utangs both have lived in the same time period for a long time.
If we only had fossils of the chimp then we only know of the chimp then if we find a much later fossil of an orang utang do we presume it wasn;t around when the chimp was or do we presume it was around with the chimp, or do we presume it is a chimp evolved?
Like i said too many holes for anything near substantial evidence.
This is getting too far OT anyway, each have their own views.
Not at all. I hold nobodys views in disregard.What i meant was it is just not possible to prove a date so far back. They can do their best to test a device so far, and make an informed opinion, that what they have proven, for the time period of the test, will remain unchanged through the millenia. But they can never be 100% I posted it because that was the date given in the article. It doesn't mean i agree or disagree with the date, I simply do not know so i can not say how old it is.
More accurately, in that particular theory, the 2012 era. The galactic alignment is 1998 +/- 18 years = 1980 - 2016
http://2012wiki.com/index.php?title=Galactic_Alignment
Though worth noting that much agianst what is popularly bantered about - "- The alignment is with the galaxy's equator, not with the galaxy's center which currently lies 5.5 degrees south of the ecliptic, further down the galactic equator from where the ecliptic crosses. "
source http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15300
Similar threads
