Ancient coins are all fake

Science is just a nice way to say witch craft.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The Flat Earth movement was originally like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Museum of Jurassic Technology. Today it seems to have gained followers who simply don’t know better. Or has it?

 

I've read that the average IQ of the world is around 88 meaning half of the planet possesses a sub-88 IQ, which is rather alarming. That plus mental illness likely explains these coin-spiracy theorists, flat-earthers and their ilk.

 

Or as George Carlin famously put it: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

 

Yes, and the sky is falling!!!

 

But in Lake Woebegone ALL the children are above average.

 

Hang on, hang on. A few issues with this:

• How do they explain ancient coins found in the most obscure places like the borders of India/North African deserts?
• What about coins found amongst carbon-dateable remains, such as coins found with bodies at Pompeii
• Experts can see clear differences between medieval fakes and original pieces
• Also I don't quite understand how they don't believe in classical civilisation, how do they think the romans conquered the entire Mediterranean?!

This also got me thinking, can scientists date ancient coins? Obviously carbon dating wont work, but is there any scientific method for scanning the carbon in coins or something?

(ps, this is my first post so sorry for being too longwinded)

 

Obviously, thousands of archeologists have faked the Roman Empire; if you don't think that a conspiracy that large is possible, just remember thousands of climate scientists are faking global warming. [Insert irony emoji here.]

 

I just don't understand how one can interpret one of the most abundant archaeological resources left from antiquity, then call it all fake and say that not one single silver coin could possibly older than 1000 years.

 

If your IQ test yields an average IQ of 88, your IQ test is broken. It's a standardized test, normalized to an average of 100.

 

According to one source, the average IQ worldwide was 89.2 in 2000, down from 91.6 in 1950, so 88 today seems likely. https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/
I think the 100 standardized IQ is based on the US. Given that a large part of performance on IQ tests depend on environment, and many countries have a much less helpful environment, it is not unexpected that the worldwide average is under 100. The national averages are skewed downward; top national IQ is 108; lowest is 60. Only 14 countries have average IQ 100 or above.

 

Thread's about coins but ok

 

harrync - Pedant says your off topic post is acceptable. Yay

 

just kidding

 

Therefore, our IQ test is broken. Whatever it's testing, it's no longer "IQ".

 

On the off chance that this was an honest question. There is a lot a assumptions made in dating coins. For example, if the coin says Septimius Severus on it we assume it was made during his reign. If it says year 2 we assume it was made in year two of his reign. Many Greek coins are only dated to a century or other long period like 'during the period after the city was founded and before it was destroyed. All this assumes you are not denying that antiquity existed in the first place. Archaeologists and numismatists work together to place coins in context with other dateable artifacts. For example, a coin of Titus found in the ruins of Pompeii under the ash dates the coin to a time before Vesuvius erupted. There are 10,000 clues that allow us to date some coins more closely and others rather generally. There are coins of people not recorded in history but if the metal content and design is similar to a known emperor, we theorize the coins may date to about the same time. It is a lot like we date worn Buffalo nickels. We look to see if the coin shows the 1913 style groundline or the one used later. We do the best we can.

I doubt this. I was last tested for IQ over 60 years ago. I took a lot of other tests along the way and do remember my old test score. I suspect that the tests are given to more people being considered for being classified as weak mentally than they are to everyday, normal and functional adults. A score average of 88 does not say anything about the millions of people never tested or tested before or after the sample period.

 

Interesting. I honestly don't know whether that might be what's happening, but the test is supposed to be validated against a "normal population" (whatever that may be circularly defined to be...)

 

Fun thread folks...

 

It was, I'm new to all this so my questions might just appear stupid