New scientific techniques refine carbon dating techniques

Scientific challenges to the beliefs promoted by the Brahma Kumaris so called "World Spiritual University"
  • Message
  • Author
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

New scientific techniques refine carbon dating techniques

Post13 May 2012

I don't suppose it will inspire the BKWSU to review its historical claims but ... new scientific techniques have refined carbon dating techniques to accuracy within a couple of decades, from the Observer Newspaper.

According to BKWSU, there is no recorded human history prior to 2,500 years ago as between 2,500 years to 5,000 years ago there was a heaven on earth in India ... of which no trace remains ... during which no other continents existed. This would equate to between the years 500 BC to 3,000 BC.
The technique developed by the team is known as Bayesian chronological modelling; it exploits the theorems of the 18th-century mathematician Thomas Bayes to bring new precision to radiocarbon dating of prehistoric samples. In the past, bones or pieces of wood could only be ascribed dates to within a few hundred years. "Now, in many cases, we can date bones or tools with an accuracy of only a couple of decades. That changes everything," said Whittle.

As a result of their successes, Whittle and Bayliss have won a £2m grant from the European Research Council to date neolithic sites across the continent. The aim is to show the technique's power to create precise chronologies of ancient events, as it has for stone-age Britain.

The first farmers arrived in Britain from France and appeared in Kent around 4,050BC. At first, agriculture spread very slowly — by 3,900BC farming had only reached the Cotswolds. Then it went through a period of explosive growth. Within 50 years it had spread across almost all of mainland Britain, reaching as far as Aberdeen. "Presumably a critical mass of farming folk had arrived in Britain while our native hunter-gatherers had seen the game was up and turned to agriculture and a sedentary way of life," said Whittle.
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: New scientific techniques refine carbon dating technique

Post02 Nov 2016

I like the fact that the name of the guy who looked at the rock wall was Cliff!

Please pay attention to, and don’t skim over, the numbers.

The famous paleolithic art in the Lascaux caves in France are dated back 17,000 years. This site is 49,0000 years.

This find shows human habitation in the south Australian inland 10,000 years earlier than previously thought, and men would have lived with creatures we now only see fossils of, in museums. Artefacts have been found that show human habitation in the north-west of the continent 60,000 years ago.

Forget all the johnny-come-lately puffed up Adi Sanatan vedic bullsh**, this is the oldest continuing culture on the planet

"Nature called and Cliff walked up this creek bed into this gorge and found this amazing spring surrounded by rock art," Mr Hamm said. "A man getting out of the car to go "to the toilet" led to the discovery of one of the most important sites in Australian pre-history."

Importantly dating of the artefacts and fossil finds show humans occupied the site from 49,000 to 46,000 years ago. Mr Hamm said the significance of the site was the combination of its age and geographic location.

The previous oldest-known site in the arid zone, located at Puritjarra in Western Central Australia, is around 38,000 years old. "[This discovery] puts people moving south from the northern part of the continent to the southern interior a lot sooner than we thought," he said. However, Mr Hamm said it was likely the climate was more favourable when they arrived. "They got there before it became really arid," he said.

Diprotodon opatutum. Aboriginal people co-existed with Diprotodon around 49,000 years ago, evidence suggests.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/r ... 40836113=1

onvalianthorwatch

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2016

New scientific techniques refine carbon dating techniques

Post02 Nov 2016

Thank you very much Pink Panther. Apparently there are some controversies in the scientific world over this dating business. And I mean big controversies and that quote of yours re: Diprotodon opatutum is but the tip of the iceberg ... but we ought not to rush in with belief where angels dare not tread.

Generally speaking, we remain lamentably uninformed on these important matters and their far reaching implication. I would so love to be around when truth breaks out.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: New scientific techniques refine carbon dating technique

Post03 Nov 2016

Which "truth"?

As per your other posts, the idea of there being "big controversies" are being whipped up not by the scientific community but by the Biblical Creationists.

The same cabal of Yankee, Neo-Con, Fundamentalist Christians I've flagged up in the other topic who some Western BKs ... bizarrely ... often piggy back upon to support their 5,000 year Cycle of Time concept.

We've covered this area before here if you search on the forum. The short version is that the science is far further forward than the BKs' and Creationists' criticisms of it.

And, notably, "God's own university" (the BKWSU) has absolute zero scientific explanation of how its beliefs happen at a practical level.

The BKs beliefs make the Book of Genesis look like some Steven Hawkings might have written.
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: New scientific techniques refine carbon dating technique

Post04 Nov 2016

Mr Onvaliantthorwatch, (Can we just call you ‘On”? )

Because there’s vested interests it serves, just saying ”the jury is still out” doesn’t mean it is.

Whether on climate change, tobacco related illnesses, one’s competence when driving fast, there are nutters who think the laws of nature do not apply to them, that somehow having a right to an opinion equals fact.

Those who think their own life is an illusion or long for a world where their shadow is not chasing them will grasp at any articulated phrase that supports their ego’s right to be right, to feel special, nay, be immortal!

Read up on the development of dating methods & check the link in the OP of this thread which is about new ways that reduce the margin of error. No single method is standalone 100% accurate. Any decent article will explain the limitations and how any finding is cross-referenced with other methods and other evidence.

Science’s virtue is that it honours those who can change the viewpoint from what’s gone before, based on a method within certain parameters that are undeniable. People who abuse that and discovered are dishonoured.

A scientist can have any opinion, but for it to be accepted further, s/he has to demonstrate it in some way that can be objectively verified.

Scientific orthodoxy is that which has been proven within certain agreed parameters and yet to be disproven.

onvalianthorwatch

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2016

What do BK's know about science?

Post06 Nov 2016

It is my opinion that on the basis of their public pronouncements and doctrine the BK's know NOTHING about science. And have not added anything of true value to real science as we know it today. Absolutely nothing!

And as for "New scientific techniques refine/refining carbon dating techniques" It is all a blather about nothing. Humans need TRUTH!
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: What do BK's know about science?

Post07 Nov 2016

onvalianthorwatch wrote:And as for "New scientific techniques refine/refining carbon dating techniques" It is all a blather about nothing. Humans need TRUTH!
Would TRUTH! be those things you agree with, or based on some other measure?
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: What do BK's know about science?

Post07 Nov 2016

onvalianthorwatch wrote:It is all a blather about nothing. Humans need TRUTH!

Actually, it's all science done with the investment of hard earned millions, over 100,000s of hours, by individuals who have invested their lives in doing it.

How much science have you done?
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: New scientific techniques refine carbon dating technique

Post08 Nov 2016

ex-l, Your point about millions of dollars and man-hours reminds me of a saying in tantric Buddhism, that something must be practiced 108,000 times before one can say they know it, feel full effects of it or have an insight into it, be it a mantra or an asana or a kata or a fine skill - music or craft. In the West, research has been done and books written on ”10,000 hours” necessary to fully master something, to become extraordinarily proficient (most of us, if we start at at all, stop at ”adequate”! ).

I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of things that I have done which I consider I have finally achieved a level of adequacy, developed and practiced skills - and worked out that, for those things, I probably had done them about 108,000 times and also, in time spent, approaching 10,000 hours as well !

Of course one can practice something incorrectly, follow the wrong path for a long time before realising the error of the way e.g. you can do an exercise badly, and if you do it repeatedly and not notice the signals, you get injured - hence RSI). But just developing the discipline of applying oneself over the long term to a particular practice is beneficial to developing that kind of character, of being able to persevere by choice, to surpass one’s current state by practice, reflection and adjustment of practice. It is one thing maybe some of us brought to BKs, misapplying our time, others may have actually developed that discipline there, gained at least that from their time there.

The project that is developing a skill or a knowledge - whether specific art or just the skills for living life beneficently (upaya kausalya) - is a personal project.

In the case of a skill or craft, only those who have done the same or more can really evaluate the achievement. Art, even the ‘art of living” is more subjective.

The project that is science is by its nature, by definition, an objective, collective, collaborative project. Within it there are two kinds - ”know about” something and ”know how” to do/achieve it. The music critic recognises a master when he hears one but does not know what the master knows.

Or if you prefer, applied science versus theoretical science.
Two theoretical physicists are lost at the top of a mountain. Theoretical physicist No 1 pulls out a map and peruses it for a while. Then he turns to theoretical physicist No 2 and says: "Hey, I've figured it out. I know where we are."
"Where are we then?"
"Do you see that mountain over there?"
"Yes."
"Well… THAT'S where we are."

I heard this joke at a physics conference in Les Arcs (I was at the top of a mountain skiing at the time, so it was quite apt). It was explained to me that it was first told by a Nobel prize-winning experimental physicist by way of indicating how out-of-touch with the real world theoretical physicists can sometimes be.

- Jeff Forshaw, professor of physics and astronomy, University of Manchester
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: New scientific techniques refine carbon dating technique

Post08 Nov 2016

Since the very beginning of its founding, there's been an 'anti-science' tendency within BKism. "Anti-knowledge" in fact, which is astounding given they call their twaddle "The Knowledge™".

I suspect this is based not just on their anti-education perspective but also a "classist" one too; engineers and 'people who do things with theirs hands' etc being lower than business, their adored aristocracy and aspired to Brahmin caste.

On one hand, BKism postulates such ridiculously impossible theories of creation without any effort whatsoever to even understand their implications, nevermind prove or explain them away; and, on the other hand, they portray scientists as - at best - willing "servants" to the BKs and - at worst - arrogant foreign ignoramuses ... "science proud Christian cats" etc ... who appear at the end of their Cycle, build a hi-tech heaven for them. And then disappear for another 5,000 years (or something).

The BK teach adherents there is no need to study and learn, all they have to do is become “royal” and scientists will serve them with all their high technology.

This translates into their current day attitude towards science and study.

One that then, in the West, borrows arguments from Christian Creationists who don't use strong, well developed arguments either but merely cast aspersions to seed doubts, and run.

This in itself is hypocritical given the BKs also call them "degraded" and "ignorant", and claim they only have a partial understanding of BKism.

I think what irks me is that they make no effort to try their ideas or try others ideas, or keep up with scientific developments ... like developments on dating techniques.

Of course, science is aware of anomalies and working to examine and resolve them. It does not just use one technique. It uses many and cross references them for the sake of accuracy. It's not perfect but it's pretty damned reliable and that the best we have to go on at present. Sure, there may well have been an Atlantis, a high tech past, visits from aliens, Krishna and Vimanas in the past ... but until it's proven as well as what we do know, science simply won't - and should not - go that far out on a limb.

Have you ever tried to discuss your beliefs with an actual expert in the field?

Have you ever tried to understand how they understand; and understand what how they come to their understandings and the limits of their understandings?

onvalianthorwatch

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2016

New scientific techniques refine carbon dating techniques

Post09 Nov 2016

Hi Pink Panther, you might notice that i use Onthor as a shortened form from time to time.

You asked "Would TRUTH! be those things you agree with, or based on some other measure?"

In my layman's terms I view TRUTH as based on 'reality' and 'facts' and does not call for suspension of belief. One definition tells us that the word as we know it today derives from Old English trīewth, trēowth and refers to ‘faithfulness, constancy’. Therefore it is my opinion that TRUTH ought to be a foundation of everything especially science but it is not the case.

I am NOT so full of conceit or narrow of mind to curtail my exploration of truth to that which (only) reinforces or establishes that which I agree with; that is a recipe for experiencing the same old, same old. I am sincerely curious.
The technique developed by the team is known as Bayesian chronological modelling; it exploits the theorems of the 18th-century mathematician Thomas Bayes to bring new precision to radiocarbon dating of prehistoric samples. In the past, bones or pieces of wood could only be ascribed dates to within a few hundred years. "Now, in many cases, we can date bones or tools with an accuracy of only a couple of decades. That changes everything," said Whittle.

So according to wikipedia (oh how I would prefer some books to refer to but for now we start with Wikipedia ... Thomas Bayes)
Royal Society – Bayes was elected to membership in the Society in 1742; and his nomination letter has been posted with other membership records at the Royal Society website here. Those signing that nomination letter were: Philip Stanhope; Martin Folkes; James Burrow; Cromwell Mortimer; John Eames.

Followship aka Admission of the Royal Society
Admission

New Fellows are admitted to the Society at a formal admissions day ceremony held annually in July, when they sign the Charter Book and the Obligation which reads:

“ We who have hereunto subscribed, do hereby promise, that we will endeavour to promote the good of the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, and to pursue the ends for which the same was founded; that we will carry out, as far as we are able, those actions requested of us in the name of the Council; and that we will observe the Statutes and Standing Orders of the said Society. Provided that, whensoever any of us shall signify to the President under our hands, that we desire to withdraw from the Society, we shall be free from this Obligation for the future.

According to the techniques that I am learning to get myself an education about the world we live in that admission policy is a huge red flag! Why? Because nowhere it expressly states that members' allegiance is to the Royal Society!
Not to mankind people! To the Society and it is a Royal One at that! But of course one can end their membership at anytime (why does the song Hotel California come to mind).

No, I am not saying that I know the Bayesian method is any more accurate than any other but what I do know is that when I read with an open mind I see that there was a lot of debate amongst this strata of society at the time; debate that I might not have been inspired to explore if I did not participate in discussion here; so thanks you have helped me to grow stronger in my faith.

New scientific techniques indeed ...

regards

onthor
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: New scientific techniques refine carbon dating technique

Post09 Nov 2016

OK ... go get a PhD in some related area and then argue your theories in Science magazine.

How long were you in the BKs?

In approximation, are you saying Bayesian method (whatever it is) is faulted because Bayes was a member of the Royal Society and the Society being a Royal makes it part of a global Satanic conspiracy to deceive humanity?

Funnily enough, I remember a Christian I knew actually telling me that dinosaur bones were stuck into rocks by Satan in order to deceive humanity from Biblical truths.

I am not interested, and I am certainly not qualified to challenge scientific establishment. But at least I am humble enough to realise that and stick to my own area of specialism ... which is BKism.

Stick to what matters in your real life. Tell us about your experiences with the BKs ... what got you in, how long did you stay, why did you leave, what did you see whilst you were in there?

onvalianthorwatch

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2016

New scientific techniques refine carbon dating techniques

Post09 Nov 2016

It would be balanced if you did not put words in my mouth and accord us all respect by not presuming to know what matters in 'my' life but perhaps it is all fair because i chose to join this site. By the way I scanned for the word 'satan' and saw that I have never used it on any of the posts that i made.

You say that are not qualified to challenge scientific establishment and humble enough to stick to 'your own area of specialism' which you describe as BKism. Because i don't know what you mean by BKism I rather just take note that you shared it with us for now.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: New scientific techniques refine carbon dating technique

Post09 Nov 2016

BKism ... equals Brahma Kumarism. Whatever you want to call the Brahma Kumari religion.

Please answer the questions asked of you of your involvement with BKism.

To be honest, the more you add to this forum regarding BKism, the more off topic meandering you are likely to be allowed. It's a question of 'adding value' versus 'subtracting value', i.e. hiding the salient, helpful, factual stuff regarding the BKs.

Please add some value re the BKs, e.g. your experience, what you saw going on, what you think is going on.

At present, I am thinking you were attracted to BKism because you are attracted to 'off the planet' musings of little to no practical value.

I think that's probably true of many of us. I would accept that criticism if it was made of me back at that time.

Thanks.
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: New scientific techniques refine carbon dating technique

Post10 Nov 2016

Onthor, Your post about Bayes is a false Syllogism, i.e. a modern use of a past mathematician’s technique because of other things at the time. It is akin to denying the pythagorean theorem in calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle because Pythagoreans also believed that beans should not be eaten or that irrational numbers were taboo! In fact, there is a story they threw one of their own overboard because he insisted on their validity!
Next

Return to Scientific questions for BKs