Science Frontiers

[artsylady]

This is a site called Science Frontiers, which collects articles regarding scientific anomalies discovered from science magazines like Nature and Science. It is fun to just browse through the many scientific anomalies. I looked at some articles and decided to post a few.

There are THOUSANDS of anomalies. Many of which, if you believed in a literal 6 day creation, would not be anomalies at all. BUT, since mainstream science accepts an old earth and evolution, we have, instead, thousands of these scientific anomalies.

Here are a few. Are dating methods affected by a changing magnetic field?

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf022/sf022p10.htm

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf049/sf049p01.htm

This one is especially interesting.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf099/sf099a03.htm

I can't keep posting links to articles. I wouldn't know when to stop, but this is an interesting link from the site.

Blond Eskimos

White Africans

White Indians in Panama (San Blas, Darien Tribes)

Welsh Indians

Mandan Origin

Red-Haired Nevada Indians

Redmen in Africa and Madagascar

Amerinds in China

White Indians in New Mexico and Northwest

Bearded Indians in Brazil

Semitic New Guineans

Ainu Origin

Yellow race in Africa

Living Neanderthals [bHE, Human-Neanderthal Hybrids]

Chinese Characteristics of the Maya

Asamanukpai: the Gold Coast Dwarfs

The Maya Sacral Spot [bHA]

New World Dwarfs

Samurai Origin

Whites in Polynesia

Melungeon Origin

Maoiri Origin

Pre-Maori New Zealanders

Polynesians in South America

Long-Ears on Easter Island, the Maldives, and Elsewhere

Whites in the Maldives

Beothucks: Norse in Newfoundland?

White Inca Aristocracy

Toltecs: Carthaginian Origin?

Basque Origin

Sea Peoples Origin

Berbers with Blond Hair, Blue Eyes

White Pygmies in Paraguay

Guanche Origin

[artsylady]

I know. I love it.

[SaturnV]

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf079/sf079g17.htm

Uh...huh...

/gets tinfoil

[Joshua-777]

Cool

[Wingwalker]

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf079/sf079g17.htm

Uh...huh...

/gets tinfoil

I am right with ya on that tin foil

[artsylady]

I'm not going to debate why or why not scientific magazines would include stories about crop circles. (That being said, I DO believe there is something other-worldly making appearances on earth in the last days)

"But now I'm thinking

'is she trying to twist this into an argument against mainstream science?'"

More against evolution and an old earth.

"So are you trying to say 'therefore all mainstream science is wrong'? "

I assume not as most of those articles have nothing to do with the old-earth vs young-earth 'debate'.

Good find though..."

I don't think all of mainstream science is wrong. These articles have nothing to do with any debates. It's not a creationist site or anything like that either. They are simply articles that have been printed over the years that discuss scientific anomalies. I do believe many of these anomalies wouldn't be anomalies if one beleived in the creation theory and young earth.

[artsylady]

"Looks like new-age psychobabble to me.."

What??

"It says " No one has estimated the effects of these substantial changes on radiocarbon dating and, perhaps, human biology."

So? Should they, Artsylady? If so, why? Do you know of any effect on Carbon-dating that this would have? No, nor me."

No, I don't know. It says "no one knows" It's interesting though that no one seems to know yet. There's a factor out there that could very well significantly affect radiocarbon dating so just keep that in mind.

"It says "it boils down to the fact that the old maps, which people of all persuasions use, are often incomplete and ambiguous. One can read a lot into them."

Yes, exactly. One can read anything at all into them. So?"

So you don't think this is interesting reading at all? Is that what you're saying?

"This says "Of course, most carbon-dating in archeology is not endangered by the primordial-carbon problem. "

which leaves me with nothing to say. It is well known that C14 dating requires care to exclude contamination. So? Do I have to say once more, C14 is not used to date rocks, for example, which still come out millions of years old, and use several different dating methods, all of which agree with one another?"

I think you should research K-AR. When you need something dated by this method, you FIRST have to tell the lab what date you beleive it to be and where you found it (what kind of strata etc) only THEN will they try to date the item.

"I see the site links to the Fortean Times, which says it all. It's fun, like UFO sightings, but it aint real facts, or science."

These are articles from science magazines. Those are what I find interesting here. If you have a problem with the content THEY choose to include, then you should email them.

And if you don't wish to delve into the many anomalies of science, then don't. This is just a site that compiles many of them. It's only for those who wish to explore the unknowns and examine them and philosophize about them. If you're not that kind of thinker, stick to whatever you are told and take that as truth. This is just out there for those who are curious.

[artsylady]

"New-age psychobabble, my dear. You know, UFOs, crystals, pyramids, 9/11 conspiracy theories, faith healing, homeopathy, blah blah blah."

Oh it's much more than that. And I think you know that too. It's the stuff of science magazines in any case so if you don't like the content, write a letter to the editor.

"Well, I know for one. Indeed, age-old magnetic change was used to establish the theory of continental drift. It was proved that the Earth's magnetic field completely switches every 100,000 years or so, and creates 'magnets' out of melting metallic rock. The alignment of these in South America matches those of Africa, and was one of the first evidences of continental drift. The magnetic anomalies are well known, and documented, and are used to apply a correction factor to C14 dating. So, there is no mystery at all.'

Well write to Nature Magazine and tell them you've solved it!

QUOTE

I think you should research K-AR. When you need something dated by this method, you FIRST have to tell the lab what date you beleive it to be and where you found it (what kind of strata etc) only THEN will they try to date the item.

"That rather depends on who you are, and if you know what you're doing. If the lab asks these questions, than they don't trust you. K-Ar dating needs certain types of rocks to be accurate. If the samples are relatively young,(less than 1,000,000 years!) then K-Ar dating should not be used."

No, that's true for scientists who need stuff dated. It's true. And yes, that's right that anything less than one million and the stuff will be dated as much older, right? So if everything really IS under a million, it's all going to be dated as much older, right????

"With respect, I rather get the impression that, far from curious, you're just looking for gaps in science that you can squeeze some Young Earth Creationism theory into."

It's not hard to do fortunately.

"It took me about ten seconds to work out what was wrong with each one of those quotes you posted. Maybe it's just not aimed at those who actually have some scientific knowledge?"

What do you mean, what was wrong with them?

Again, if you have a problem with the content, take it up with the science magazines. Don't shoot the messenger.

[artsylady]

It's hard debating with people who are are sooooo quick to dismiss everything they disagree with, they don't really even contemplate anything presented. I hope I'm wrong about you Dave, that you are like that.

[artsylady]

Pursuant to the possible effect of the earth's recent envelopment by a molecular cloud on the accuracy of carbon dating (SF#98), we now look at the potential distortion caused by the ingestion of primordial carbon (carbon-13) by plants and animals. Primordial carbon may come from limestone or natural gas welling up from the earth's interior. Modern life forms that metabolize primordial rather than atmospheric carbon dioxide, with its cosmic-ray produced carbon-14, will appear extremely old when carbon-dated.

For example, M. Grachev et al carbon-dated flatworms and a sponge collected from a bacterial mat near a thermal vent 420-meters deep in Lake Baikal. The apparent ages of these living organisms ranged from 6860 to 10,200 years.

(Grachev, M., et al; "Extant Fauna of Ancient Carbon," Nature, 374:123, 1995)

Even animals eating these apparently ancient life forms may take up their carbon-13 and, in effect, be drained of carbon-14. They would appear to age rapidly. Such false aging has actually been induced in the laboratory with mice fed on brewer's yeast grown in natural gas. These mice, living in cages at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, were carbon-dated as being 13,000 years old, and were expected to attain a ripe old age of 35,000 in a few months. (All this was part of a cancer-research project.)

Of course, most carbon-dating in archeology is not endangered by the primordial-carbon problem. But, as K. Turteltaub, "father" of the Lazarus mice, commented:

"We've joked about sprinkling them [the mice] around archeological sites just to confuse everyone."

(Weisman, Jonathan; "Of Lazarus Mice and Carbon-14," Tri-Valley Herald, July 12, 1993. Cr. R. Berg)