Conspiracies... Archaelogical Coverups... Science Lies...

ajani_mgo

I posted this on NewBuddhist instead of some conspiracy ringsite because I felt that I needed logical minds that are objective and sane.

If none of you all here know what I'm talking about, a Google search on "New World Order", "Jonathan Gray" etc etc. will turn up things beyond your widest imaginations. It has been for years since I did all these, and I have always taken these with a pinch of salt, although I must confess I tend to get confused after sometimes at times...

Right, so carbon-dating's unreliable and a huge lie by evolutionists?

So the Bible proved that God made the mountains aged beyond their time?

So there is a plan by the Antichrist for the Battle of Armaegeddon?

I mean no offense really, but at times I wonder if all these are just attempts by some Christians to mislead and seek converts indirectly, or do they all contain an ounce of truth?

Does anyone here has any stand on this issue? Does anyone here really believe that we have a serious information coverup here, and that Lemuria did exist?

Through my life I have studied Nazism (woe to me if I be arrested tomorrow morning!) and various other such "coverups", and the plot always seems to repeat itself, hey this Earth is more than it seems, as modern such sites strive to prepare people for the Apocalypse. Will the world end in 2012? I guess we shall all have to wait to see...

Does the Bible really contain a true account of the Beginning to the End? Did ancient civilisations possess huge troves of knowledge, built nuclear plants, had amazing technologies we could only marvel at not even in science-fiction books, or even found the Path to Enlightenment independently? Were all Created actually?

Here I see realms of Science competing with each other, each proving different Beginnings.

I'm sorry to all the Creationists if I have offended you all by posting such a post, but this is something I have to get off my chest.

ajani_mgo

Right.. I haven't got arrested yet.. But i'd just like to state that all these sites' existence can be justified by the Freedom of Information and perhaps even the Freedom of Religion.. So I'm not against them, just wondering about the information they provide..

Xrayman

Dear Ajani,

To all of the conspiricies that you described on your post, I agree, I believe that they are all hogwash.

Knowing a thing or two about Nuclear Medicine and Nuclear disintegration (also referred to as a Half-Life) yes it can be slightly inaccurate due to the fact that it is an exponential degradation of any isotope, the specific isotope of Carbon used in carbon dating is C14.

I believe that largely the inacuracy is due to a bell curve of predictability in terms of percentage of disintegrations that fall into the EXACT timescale so there will always be some error. i could explain this for a lot longer but it would bore you-I'm sure.

there is a conspiracy about not landing on the moon. This I can almost Guarantee is crap! some one/thing from earth got there!. I used to work with a man that was responsible for the maintenance of an Earth-Based LASER that was routinely fired up to the Moon to check its wobble and distance from us-it was reflected by a set of mirrors placed there by the Apollo15 astronauts-as I said some one/thing had to have put the mirrors there!

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_Experiments_LRRR.html

ajani_mgo

Hmm, if you don't mind I could always love to learn more on Carbon Dating. At least this will give me alot more knowledge to deal with deeper "supposed errors".

It's so unfair to have so much of my Nuclear Physics module removed from syllabus - at least Carbon Dating still stays, though it's extremely condensed.

Xrayman

Just a small example on the randomness of nuclear disintegration, If you do a scan of lets say the bones-a small amount of Technecium is combined with (labelled) Phosphonate (Phosphorus-a mineral the bones use and take up during repair or during cancerous tumour growth-metastasize -change). so where there is greater bone repair (microfractures etc.) the area will be hotter-brighter.

The scanner does an estimate of the time needed to aquire the right amount of disintegrations to fully expose-take the scan. Almost always this estimation is wrong-either longer or shorter-usually two scan heads are used-this is to reduce the scan time by 50%, however the time is still variable. so much for computers!

then there is Compton scatter, the Collimators/density of the scanning crystal etc. all of this is just way too deep, my point is, there will be an error especially if we are talking about some small percentage per year evaluated-consider 40thousand years and the time error increases-compound error-is it called?

cheers
Xray

ajani_mgo

Erms... My knowledge is too brief but I think I get the picture. :rockon:

Is it really true that scientists can carbon-date a sample, then later discard the recordings when they think that it is "in an era too long ago" or "in an era too short before", then redo the readings and then obtain a completely, astonishing-new and different set of readings?

Something like what is mentioned here: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Simonthepilgrim

Dear Ajani, friend,

You PMed me to consider this thread and it arrived just as I had finished replying to XRay on the topic of religious education. The same comments apply here:

It is essential that we acquire the 'tools' necessary to do the job in front of us. I spent a day putting together a flat-pack bench for the garden. Having done this sort of thing a few times before (as few as I have been able to manage), I assembled the necessary tools, equipment, etc. I read the instructions, in which the illustrations and the words contradicted each other (quelle surprise!). I laid out the components and put the various nuts, bolts, washers, split rings and screws in a safe place. We now have a nice new bench in the garden.

In the same way, when we are confronted by a theory that is new to us, like Hollow Earth, for example, or Rand Flem Ath's Atlantis/Antarctica suggestion, or David Rohl's New Chronology of the Egyptian Pharaohs, we need to consider what intellectual tools are needed in order to understand and validate the theory.

This is the reason that scientific work is subjected to peer-review which can be a ferocious as the ancient Inquisition. Just like the Inquisition, the aim is to examine and enquire into new ideas to check if they accord with what is already understood. If they do not, can they be explained or understood and assimilated into the current body of knowledge?

Go back to mathematics, because it is where you can find the paradigm of 'proof'. Yet, even here, there are basic divergences. Euclidean geometry appeared to describe the very nature of the universe for over 3000 years. Blaise Pascal re-"discovered" the axioms from a standing start in the 17th century. The axioms are the bases on which every building and machine has been constructed. And yet, from the 19th century on, new geometries have been elaborated which enable us to understand an "Einsteinian" universe.

The maths of all this is beyond me but the flow and process is as clear as day. New theories (Riemann and his geometry, Flem Ath and Atlantis) challenge the current state of knowledge. Both the new idea and the established require to be tested against each other. Some ideas are so far outwith the mainstream that it is far from clear if they are descriptions of reality or of fantasy. It is the task of education to equip each of us to arrive at reasoned decisions.

ajani_mgo

I've found your post really enlightening :P , Simon. True, I paticularly understand the link between knowledge and proof. Seems like I'll have to make do with what is conventional, or go into my own research, huh?

I asked my Physics teacher, who's a Christian, today on carbon dating. She says that it's actually fairly credible, and an average of readings is taken in established laborataries, not the so-called "conventional readings".

But I still wonder about the site I've posted. Is it really true that carbon-14 isotopes are found in even living bodies in large quantities? Hmmm...

Simonthepilgrim

Ajani, friend,

remember what Eisnstein said about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Use the 'conventional' tools to achieve the unconventional, just as you use a ladder to reach the highest point on the roof. You can see much more from there.