The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts

[Humpty]

What do you think?

 

Hoaxes, frauds or could some be real and just the dating systems are wrong.

 

Quote:

 

The Bible tells us that God created Adam and Eve just a few thousand years ago, by some fundamentalist interpretations. Science informs us that this is mere fiction and that man is a few million years old, and that civilization just tens of thousands of years old.

 

Could it be, however, that conventional science is just as mistaken as the Bible stories? There is a great deal of archeological evidence that the history of life on earth might be far different than what current geological and anthropological texts tell us. Consider these astonishing finds:

 

Puzzling Artifacts Link

[Andavari]

No offense to religions worldwide however I put my faith in science because I need hard evidence to support claims versus just reading them in "the book".

[zaphirer]

Well, you can never truly believe what you've seen on the internet, because it hasn't been reviewed/authenticated. I do know that the Costa Rican stone balls do exist, they've been found in numerous places around South America, but that is the only 'mystery' I've heard of in that list.

[TheFiresInTheSky]

The Baghdad Battery

mythbusters replicated this one, it was pretty cool.

 

Costa Rican stone balls

mythbusters did this one too

anyways, i think the earth is only about 3000 yrs old.

heres proof and why i think that.

 

"1 - Star clusters. One type of galaxy in outer space is the star cluster. There are many of them; and, within each one, are billions of stars. Some of these clusters are moving so rapidly, that it would be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.-p. 11."

 

First, star clusters are not galaxies, so they have immediately started out on the wrong foot. Star clusters form continuously out of interstellar clouds in space...even today...but the process has been going on for a very long time in cosmic history. Some star clusters have only a few hundred stars ( Pleiades) while others have nearly a million (globular clusters). Star clusters eventually get stripped to pieces by the gravitational tidal forces of the Milky Way and are in fact always losing stars from their outer peripheries. There is no mystery to this. Its just basic gravitation at work.

 

2 - Large stars. Some stars are so large, and radiate energy so rapidly, that they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be too immense.-p. 11.

 

This is a rather typical example of how many discordant issues are thrown together into the same sentence to make the whole thing look like a major problem. Stars come in a range of masses from over 100 times the sun, to 0.01 times the sun. The more massive stars have higher core gravities and so the central temperatures are much higher than for the sun. This means that nuclear fusion reactions there are occurring at a much more rapid pace. The result is that massive stars use up their available core nuclear fuels in only a few 100 million years or less, compared to the sun which can toodle along for 10 billion years. The comment about 'they could not have contained enough hydrogen..." is meaningless and is inserted as a red herring to derail the reader.

 

3 - High-energy stars. Four types of stars radiate energy too rapidly to have existed longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.-pp. 11-12.

 

There are no such things as 'high-energy' stars. Astronomers speak of high-mass stars, and it is true that the more massive of these can live less than a few million years before going supernova. These stars are being born all the time, and nearly every nebula that you see in the Milky Way ( especially the Great Nebula in Orion) contains colonies of massive stars being born even now. They were not all created at the same time billions of years ago. This is the error that the Creationists like to introduce because most people who are not astronomers think that the stars were all formed about the same time.

 

4 - Binary stars. Most stars in the disk of galaxies are binary stars (two stars revolving about one another); yet, frequently, one is classified as very old and the other very young. This cannot be.-p. 12.

 

They are right when they say that most stars are members of binary star systems. They are wrong when the present age differences as evidence of a problem. It is well known from direct observation that many binary systems evolve in a complicated way. Two stars formed from the same cloud at the same time will evolve very differently depending on their masses. The more massive one will become a red giant star in a few hundred million years, and the companion star can consume or accrete the outer layers of the red giant star. This influx of new gas onto the companion star can literally reset the clock on the companion, making it look younger than the red giant. In fact, even before this happens, the red giant obviously looks like a much older star than its companion. This has nothing to do with when they were formed, but the fact that the more massive one evolves faster and will look older.

 

5 - Hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it; therefore, if the universe were as old as the theory requires, there would now be very little hydrogen in the universe.-p. 12.

 

Their first statement, that significant quantities of hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it, is correct. What is incorrect is the second statement which is actually very vague. What theory do they mean? Their's? Astronomers? Big Bang Cosmology? With no new cosmological sources of hydrogen since the Big Bang, during the present age of the universe (15 billion years or so) not all of this hydrogen should have been converted into stars. We can see how inefficient it is to form stars from gas clouds, and given the rates that the Milky Way's interstellar medium gets converted into stars, it will take another few hundred BILLION years before it is all gone. Eventually the universe will run out of free hydrogen not already buried in the dense stellar cinders called white dwarfs or neutron stars, but this will take several trillion years or more.

 

 

 

let me know what you think

[1984]

I think Science and the theory of evolution is as plausible as any religion. and vice versa. i wasnt there, and both are just the interpretations of man (and women ). to be honest, i simply just dont care, thus i do not waste my energy thinking on such things.

[Admiral Ross]

No offense to religions worldwide however I put my faith in science because I need hard evidence to support claims versus just reading them in "the book".

 

I believe that is called Scientology. However, current science CAN'T or try to EXPLAIN the Paranormal.

 

Check out this movie The Entity, this movie gives me the creeps! Science tries to contain a supernatural entity and can't.

[fredvries]

I call myself an agnostic. Which means that I only believe in something when it has been scientifically proven. Science and religion are two completely seperate entities.

 

Science is subject to tests and, while some can be quite dogmatic about it, a theory could change if and when another and more apt theory is accepted. Even Charles Darwin's theory of the descent of man could someday become extinct when somebody postulates a new one.

 

Religion is something that is not subject to tests. You just have to believe it at face value and that's the end of it. If you don't then you're a heretic.

[1984]

I believe that is called Scientology. However, current science CAN'T or try to EXPLAIN the Paranormal.

 

Check out this movie The Entity, this movie gives me the creeps! Science tries to contain a supernatural entity and can't.

 

 

actually Scientology is a religions as well (well, its banned in Germany, but everywhere else..). Started by hubbard (who was a science fiction writer previously-go figure), it is a religion, no different than any other in that it has a set of principles based on higher beings, a set of moral conduct, etc.....