yoda Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Yoda : Good point . But I think the life time of Normal trees does not go beyond a century or two at best ... yes there are trees that live for a millenium but I dont think they happen to be in the Indian Subcontinent. Ok. Let's accept that the tree wasn't very old when the wooden piece was taken from it. But we all know that wood doesn't become a piece furniture right away or doesn't take one final spot and never moves. For all we know it could have been wood from the door of one of the many temples these guys bulldozed.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Incase you are wondering about this 'revolutionary new author' that conducted this 'ground breaking study'' date=' its this chap : PN Oak. Ie, total nutter. The same nutter who thinks Islam is corruption of some weird vedic ****, Christianity the corruption of some weird vedic ****, Kaaba a shrine to Shiva, Christianity began as a form of Krishna worship (mundane word association that overlaps several languages without carrying over meaning), the Papacy being a Vedic priesthood until 300 AD or so, etc etc. Nothing i've read from this madman even qualifies as a product of scientific methodology. Ie, total nutter and a dude with absolute 'zero credibility' in my books- someone who's arguments go off to the dustbin in one fell swoop, as he is from the retarded 'hindus did everything, everyone else stole the credit, woe be to us, boo hoo cry cry' loser chip on the shoulder mentality that is common amongst so many of the hinduvta type thinkers proliferating in India. Yet another reason for me to take my leave when such dementia is being propagated and backpatted around by wannabes. I don't know about this dude's credibility but you are not aiding ur already dubious credibility by this naked ad-hominem. This is anything but debate in parlours of people who can think. Yes u will certainly get soem claps from like-minded ad-hominem peddlers but that's it no intellectual value whatsoever. Don't know about other things but the fact of Kabah being symbol of some deity of pagan Quraish not even quran/hadith opposees. They just have a convenient flight of logic saying actually it was created by Ibrahim and quraish usurped it. This gentleman at least produces points to support the claim but for quraan-thumpers mere claim is good enough. As usual ur attempt at rebuttal more often than not varies from ur own opinions to new low of ad hominem. Anyway till yesterday you were swearing by evolution so why do u find the impact of oldest religion in the world on the rest a far-fetched idea. Am not asking u to trumpet it in the way u did in defence of akabar mahan but why this rigid stance suddenly where even mere acknowledgement is not acceptable. Little consistency goes a long way in any debate, if u will keep changing yardsticks tab to ho chala debate. We may as well drop this charade of debate and start beating our keyboards like zombie result won't be any worse.
Anakin Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus They are saying the carbon dating does suggest it's older, but not conclusive. As I said before why not do different types of dating available now with few more samples? Also I'd like to know if every muslim tomb has some directional rule wrt mecca. BTW everytime carbon dating doesn't agree with someone's theory/idea, it's said to be useless
gator Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus exactly Anakin... if it is easily refutable and considered solid evidence, why facking have tht...
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus It is absurd to suggest that this structure which clearly resembles Moghul architecture is even remotely a Hindu structure. You should start watching the show ultimate home makeover u won't find it hard to swallow the idea that modulation can change the external structure significantly. It's not that hard. At the end of the day defining difference in architecure mostly is at the highest end of any structure and it can be done. I am sure had great Qutub found some ways to erase those inscription on qutub minar you would have found the idea of qutub Minar being creation of gupta dunasty too a litle far-fetched. As I say alway there is nothing qutub about qutub minar unless an attempt at defacing its inscription is called contribution.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus The fact that the author consistently misspells "Mughal" or "Moghul" as "Mogul" tells me all I need to know about how much Mughal history has he read and is familiar with. Ah those holy grails of spell-check. Just an idea did it occur to you may be the electronic version was done by some lowly-paid typist and those crept in at that time. This is not peer-reviewed jornal articles which goes several rounds of tis and that check. Who knows this may be just a reproduction attempt by some individual from this gentleman's paper. Please attempt to refute points raised don't hide behind these meaningless shield. Yeah sleek one-liners taken from emails like "100 ways to put someone down" don't count as rebuttal. :lmao:
yoda Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus I am glad you guys think the Taj is now a Hindu temple.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus all i am saying is' date=' why u guys passing one-liners negating the claims or jus dissing tht guy who collected the facts... jus prove the facts wrong, if u can![/quote'] Why? let me guess that takes at least some crude knowledge of history and staring in the eys of cold facts and not many are equipped to take this project. OTOH disparaging one-liners come cheap u just have to open those emails which do rounds every now and then and pick one of those lines and you are all set. :lmao:
The Outsider Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus If you are saying that the results are un-official then yeah you are right ... but to say they are junk is not correct. Unofficial, doubtful AND inconclusive. So how can you claim it was a Hindu structure? By the way, I am all for having a new Carbon dating on it.
The Outsider Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus How does carbon dating a piece of wood prove the age of the building it was installed in as opposed to just the age of the tree it was broken from? Actually Yoda, the idea behind Carbon dating is that the Carbon content in the wood(as a percentage) stays constant till the tree is alive and then starts decaying exponentially after its death. However, Carbon dating is still a very tricky business no matter what people like Oak would have you believe specially when samples get older than a couple of hundred years. Since the decay in Carbon content is exponential it is much easier to measure the decrease after when say 50% of it is left than when 0.001% is left because you need very precise techniques to measure those kind of traces and quantities which are not really very reliable.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus SO I see credibility of carbon-dating is in question on two counts (1) Sample may be dubious because it was smuggled. Then the question arises why the need of smuggling cropped up in first place. Why is indian administartion being so secretive and not allowing some research. I am sure those interested in research don't want whole door to be broken, just a small ample is enough. Conclusison some uncomfortable secrets are being guared but this overly protective stance disallowing any research. (2) Credibility of carbon dating: yes it's not exact science for that mnatetr no dating mathod is exact science. By exact I mean if u are looking for results in terms of exact date and time then u are barking up the wrong tree carbon dating or for that matter any other dating won't help. They come with error like any mesurement on the face of earth some less some more. In strict sense there is nothing exact in this world, u will see even those crime investigators will say subject may have died between this and that hour it's never said subject died at this hour sharp. Here let me add this at the outset: Anyway, anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. So as long as we are within this boundary with error in measurement croping due to several reasons we should be able to say the approx age. The factors other than the measurement error contributing towards this error could be many. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for. [Fortunately there are calibration tools available for these] Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant?for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age. Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ?clock? is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. [Again calibration is possible] Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible. But fortunately we are not talking about event which occurred beyond recorded history.
The Outsider Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus why doubtfull & inconclusive ? Doubtful because they are based on a stolen sample rather than any supervised and transparent one. Inconclusive because of the reasons the guy who did the testing mentioned and I have elaborated in my post above. Read the other points in the OP. Which other ones you want to discuss. But before we go there, lets agree that the first point you wanted to discuss was unofficial, doubtful, and inconclusive. Also I'd like to know if every muslim tomb has some directional rule wrt mecca. Only in the mind of the author of the OP.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus How does carbon dating a piece of wood prove the age of the building it was installed in as opposed to just the age of the tree it was broken from? Actually Yoda, the idea behind Carbon dating is that the Carbon content in the wood(as a percentage) stays constant till the tree is alive and then starts decaying exponentially after its death. However, Carbon dating is still a very tricky business no matter what people like Oak would have you believe specially when samples get older than a couple of hundred years. Since the decay in Carbon content is exponential it is much easier to measure the decrease after when say 50% of it is left than when 0.001% is left because you need very precise techniques to measure those kind of traces and quantities which are not really very reliable. Don't worry even for 50% sample subect has to be more than 10000 years old we here are talking about hardly 3-400 years old subject. In this range carbon dating is fairly accurate. Yes unless you subscribe to this cynic view [ which I see prevalent in almost any sort of science. there are always some naysayers but here we are talking about popularly held belief] They raise following bogey 1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time. [They have no proof which says it was differet at any stage but just an idea. Given most of the chemical phnomena subscribe to arrhenius type equations I don't see any credibility in this point raised] 2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes [ Again I don't know how it can happen adsorption on the surface may be possible but to insinuate that it changes the content throughout is again far fetched conjecture] 3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material [ There is credibility in this point it certainly has been found to be correct and there are proper calibration metods available for the dating within the range of at least documented history.]
The Outsider Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus What were the error bars on that guy's results? Lets start with that, shall we?
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus 34. A wooden piece from the riverside doorway of the Taj subjected to the carbon 14 test by an American Laboratory and initiated by Professors at Pratt School of Architecture, New York, has revealed that the door to be 300 years older than Shahjahan,since the doors of the Taj, broken open by Muslim invaders repeatedly from the 11th century onwards, had to b replaced from time to time. The Taj edifice is much more older. It belongs to 1155 A.D, i.e., almost 500 years anterior to Shahjahan. The above is the claim of this report and the following is typical error in carbon dating. Radiocarbon labs generally report an uncertainty, e.g., 3000?30BP indicates a standard deviation of 30 radiocarbon years. Traditionally this includes only the statistical counting uncertainty and some labs supply an "error multiplier" that can be multiplied by the uncertainty to account for other sources of error in the measuring process. Additional error is likely to arise from the nature and collection of the sample itself, e.g., a tree may accumulate carbon over a significant period of time. Such old wood, turned into an artifact some time after the death of the tree, will reflect the date of the carbon in the wood. Point to make here is 30 years error is reported when the mesurement data is 3000 and as u have yoruself rightly explained to yoda error in mesaurement gets bigger and bigger at the higher end of decay spectrum at lower end it's more accurate. So it could be concluded that when final result is 1000 years error will be most certainly less than 30 years. If it makes u happy make it more say 100 yrs but to insinuate that in the measurement result of 1000 years 500 years error [that's what u will have to believe if u want to bring date to the priod of Shahjehan] is what carbon dating gives is basically saying carbon dating is bullcrap. Had that been the case it would long have been dropped from the lexicon of scientific parlour.
angsachdeva Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus ok, this is my first post and i dont usually write. but when misinformed ppl call things like P N Oak's fantasies "facts" its just funny and sad. you guys are looking at the stuff he said and saying "wow, it makes sense. these are facts because he is saying so." have u ever wondered that maybe half of the stuff that he presents as facts are simply wrong? dont believe me? go and research this on wikipedia. people love conspriacy theories because the idea that there can be a deeper truth and that there is a cover-up sounds like a mystery novel plot and it excites them (like the stupid world trade center conspiracy movie, loose change).
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus ok' date=' this is my first post and i dont usually write. but when misinformed ppl call things like P N Oak's fantasies "facts" its just funny and sad. you guys are looking at the stuff he said and saying "wow, it makes sense. these are facts because he is saying so." have u ever wondered that maybe half of the stuff that he presents as facts are simply wrong? dont believe me? go and research this on wikipedia. people love conspriacy theories because the idea that there can be a deeper truth and that there is a cover-up sounds like a mystery novel plot and it excites them (like the stupid world trade center conspiracy movie, loose change).[/quote'] Wrong analogy, unlike India where more than 100000 temple strcutures defaced and converted into mosques are present even the staunch psecs can't disprove this, it's well documented USa doesn't have history of mass kiling of its own citizens for streamlinign their policy. In this bakdrop one more temple falling to the same fate doesn't seem far-fetched. The guy has done research and if u can refute it. As far as loose change and 9/11 conspiracy theory is concerned as i already mentioned there is no precedence of american govt killing their own people as a routine to make case against anyone so this is quite novel proposition and moreover each and every point of loose change video have been refuted a counter video to this effect is already doing rounds on the internet. Google it and watch it.
angsachdeva Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus bheembhai, if you know how science works, then you would know that you cant prove a negative. so if they find papers from Mughal records with the design layouts and other stuff related to building the Taj Mahal, it proves that Taj Mahal was built by the Mughals. however, if you are unable to find such evidence, you cannot prove that it was built by the Hindus or even that it wasnt built by the Mughals. its simply a lack of evidence that doesnt prove something positive (that the Mughals built Taj Mahal). because it means that we just dont know. just like saying that if you havent found any proof that god exists (which we havent, scientifically), it doesnt mean that u can prove that god doesnt exist.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus bheembhai' date=' if you know how science works, then you would know that you cant prove a negative. so if they find papers from Mughal records with the design layouts and other stuff related to building the Taj Mahal, it proves that Taj Mahal was built by the Mughals. however, if you are unable to find such evidence, you cannot prove that it was built by the Hindus or even that it wasnt built by the Mughals. its simply a lack of evidence that doesnt prove something positive (that the Mughals built Taj Mahal).[b'] because it means that we just dont know. just like saying that if you havent found any proof that god exists (which we havent, scientifically), it doesnt mean that u can prove that god doesnt exist. Good point about how science works. So we don't know and when some guy tries to delve into this 'don't know' then all u have to offer as retort is deigning verbosity without trying to rationally refute even a single point raised by the person.
The Outsider Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Point to make here is 30 years error is reported when the mesurement data is 3000 and as u have yoruself rightly explained to yoda error in mesaurement gets bigger and bigger at the higher end of decay spectrum at lower end it's more accurate. So it could be concluded that when final result is 1000 years error will be most certainly less than 30 years. If it makes u happy make it more say 100 yrs but to insinuate that in the measurement result of 1000 years 500 years error [that's what u will have to believe if u want to bring date to the priod of Shahjehan] is what carbon dating gives is basically saying carbon dating is bullcrap. Had that been the case it would long have been dropped from the lexicon of scientific parlour. Are you telling me that error bars are solely a function of the age of a sample? Do you want me to pull up something which has greater errors bars than 30 years for a sample less than 3000 years old? Are you trying to tell me that anything which is X years old will have the same error bars? Not untill you prove that the sample was tampered with. Scientific samples are obtained in transparency and according to well established scientific procedures. The above was not and hence is not a scientific sample and any results coming out of it are at best dubious. Dada has taken care of this .... Thx DR. Dada has taken care of jack$hit. Show me the existence of a piece of paper from Moghul records that show the design implementation and other such mundane stuff that acompanies such a Grand scale proj. Show me the existence of a piece of paper from ancient records where the design implementation and other such mundane stuff that accompanies grand projects like the Konark temple in Orissa or many other similar famous temples.
Recommended Posts