Printable View
So I came across a link that talks about some artifacts found in the earth. I was wondering if the question the article raises has any basis for consideration. I specifically thought of Tom, because I know of his love for science.
http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=75&z=1
I'm curious as to everyone else's thoughts.
I just love stuff like this.
Thanx for the link. Havent seen that site before.
Something to consider, if you Google most of the artifacts listed, a good many of them are referred to as lore or hoaxes. Even with that info in mind, I'm curious to know if others think the question the article asks is worthy of consideration.
most things are worthy of a consideration imo. Even the most out there things cause there might be some ounce of truth in most things.
+ if not for the truth just for the fun of reading of some hoax might make it worth it :)
I agree. And I think that some of the "discoveries" we take for granted today could have been discovered long ago and then forgotten over the years. There are mysteries and it is arrogance to think we KNOW these are hoaxes.
John
I simply believe that the dating methods commonly used are based on assumptions that are not necessarily correct. If I throw away something and in 10,000 years someone comes along and digs it up, why would they try to date it based on the surrounding rock?
If I was diving a shipwreck from the 1700's and discovered a modern coin, I would assume that it had been dropped by a previous diver, and not part of the original wreck. Why should we assume that a device that is obviously centuries past the date of a wreck was actually part of the wreck? I would agree with the hoax theory.
I think if something is discovered in undisturbed rock or sediment layer that then it a safe assumption that the object was there at the time the layer or rock was formed. The people who found these objects could have simply been mistaken or possibly made up the whole thing.
That said, the Antikythera Mechanism and Baghdad Battery are very real artifacts that have been well studied and even reconstructed.
These are all fun and all. There's many more and many more interesting problems, but which require lot's a pre knowledge to understand. Biggest problem with geographic history is that the only good dating technique we have is carbon dating, and that only goes 60 000 years back. Beyond that we have to use old fashion detective skills and inference. But I believe they're doing quite well considering. But that's down to faith. The article writers analogy that science could be as wrong as Biblical loons should be offensive to any thinking person.Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
It's not that I have a special love for science. I have a special love for evidence before drawing conclusions. But that's true for all of us. Even religious people. We will never take the required leap of faith if we don't find acceptable, (by us) evidence. Science is just one methodical way of judging evidence. It's not important which method we use, as long as we agree on which method to use when communicating findings and opinions. The thing is that we are so stuck to this paradigm that even Christians use scientific language when justifying their faith to themselves. We don't have any other shared language for judging evidence.
It's not that I love science more than the proponents of a supernatural intelligent deity. Christianity isn't a non-science, it's sloppy science. It's about finding evidence to prove a theory instead of finding evidence to disprove a theory, which is the archetype of sloppy science.
The cardinal error often done is to say that science is a separate faith than that of the Bible. Being Christian is loving science just as much as being an atheist. It's only down to the skill of applying it.
edit: I'm not implying that atheists can't suck as much at critical scientific thinking as any religious person. Just because the random atheists arguments for atheism might suck doesn't mean that it gives any strength to religious supernatural faith. It's not a competition.
Tom,
I want to weigh in here in semi agreement with you.
You key in on one sentence where the author points out the possibility that science might be wrong, and then start to attack fundamentalists who want us to believe in the Bible despite evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation.
This person does not want us to believe the Bible, he wants us to believe that this planet has been visited by a group of space travelers, and that we are the result of that visit. I agree that he is a fool, but he is not a religious fool.Quote:
Could it be, however, that conventional science is just as mistaken as the Bible stories?
I would agree with that, but then we must define our terms. That nail inside a piece of coal was not found under those conditions. The reason archaeological digs are closely scrutinized and documented is to prevent cross contamination.Quote:
Originally Posted by bthest
I use Occam's Razor to explain things I come across. If I went diving and found a piece of technology in a sediment level that clearly could not date to that period, I would assume that it came from another time. It is simpler for me to believe that than that someone independently of the years of background needed to develop complex clockwork somehow short circuited all the necessary research and development to make a clock that can track the solar system.
The reason that Occam's Razor works is that a simple answer is often the correct one. Trying to tell me that something happened thousands of years before the technology existed, I will never buy that.
Is this some kind of trick statement to draw me in, or what? What's simple about the theories laid out in the Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
This is something I thought you would agree with. there are people who actually believe that a complex clockwork mechanism was somehow built before the supporting technology existed. No way.
Edit: never mind, ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
Back to the never ending argument. I'll shut up now before I'm in to my neck as I usually get.
edit2: and since I'm an idiot and have to lick both poles of the battery just to make sure.
Who said there is a clockwork mechanism? If you throw an apple into a lake, the bacteria that start growing their will treat it like a constant. The world they've always lived on, but it will perish. Be eaten, or cleaned away. What might appear as constant to us might in fact be as fleeting.
Things are pretty random in this world and the only reason why we live in wonder of how this complexity could arise is off-course because this is the world we live in. If the world had been in any other configuration we would live in awe over how it could be like that. We are perfectly adapted to this world because this is the world we've evolved in. No, magic, no supernatural no mysteries.
I actually do not know what it is, but i have read about this, seen numerous x-rays, and even working replicas based on those x-rays.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
The people who believe in this particular type of thing want me to believe that a complex mechanical device with gears, cogs, and springs was somehow built 2000 years ago. the problem with that is that it needs supporting technology to build something like that, and that did not exist. Let us look at the possible explanations.
- This device discovered on an old shipwreck was somehow built despite the fact that the builder would have needed to discover and build centuries worth of tools to accomplish this.
- An advanced civilization built this and there exist no trace of this civilization anywhere else on earth.
- A race of ancient astronauts visited Earth and left this behind, even though something like this would be nothing more than a museum piece to them, just as it is to us now.
- It was dropped from a passing ship much later and somehow managed to land almost on top of this old wreck.
Personally I find all of these unlikely, but the one that works for me is number 4. Occam's Razor simply says that the simplest answer is the most likely one. Though there is even a simpler one that I did not mention, because I am willing to give the people who discovered this the benefit of the doubt.
- This is a complete hoax.
Or is a misstake. Carbon dating has a huge problem of specimen contamination. Maybe somebody boobed at the lab. A journalist heard the story ran it and when the scientist did a re-check and got back to the journalist, it wasn't news any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
If something requires knowledge in metalurgy that first was discovered in the 15'th century then we know it can't be older. A good scientist entertains every avenue, but in most cases the truth is painfully obvious to everybody involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
I would agree with that, except that it apparently isn't.
Quote:
More than a hundred years ago an extraordinary mechanism was found by sponge divers at the bottom of the sea near the island of Antikythera. It astonished the whole international community of experts on the ancient world. Was it an astrolabe? Was in an orrery or an astronomical clock? Or something else? For decades, scientific investigation failed to yield much light and relied more on imagination than the facts. However research over the last half century has begun to reveal its secrets. It dates from around the 1st century B.C. and is the most sophisticated mechanism known from the ancient world. Nothing as complex is known for the next thousand years. The Antikythera Mechanism is now understood to be dedicated to astronomical phenomena and operates as a complex mechanical "computer" which tracks the cycles of the Solar System.
These people apparently believe that this device was built centuries before its time. I have no problem with that, but I do not, nor will I ever, believe that.
I actually read a thing about that, which explained it. It was amazing for it's time, but not impossible. It was made from bronze which wasn't impossible for the age. The maths and astronomy know how existed since 2000 years before it's make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
makes me think of stargate