Carbon dating, dinosaurs and the shroud of Turin

Tim

Yes - that was Bippy123's reaction too!

I think when people aren't willing to hear the argumnts, then it's not unreasonable to characterise their opinion as a matter of faith.
 
Don't patronise me. I don't like your tone one bit. I have not closed my eyes you cheeky sod and wished very hard, I've been following the progress for decades and I go with the evidence.

I don't care whether or not you respond to me again.

My apologies. It just appears to me that you are going along with people who agree with your point of view and ignoring the work I have done, and explained on this forum.

2. Rogers said there was no vanillin in the cloth which would put the age at 1500-3000 years old. Why should I doubt his expertise just because sceptics don't want to hear that ?

Yet this skeptic is an expert in analyzing data, including science and technical journals. Yet you doubt both my expertise, and that of the laboratories that did the initial c14 tests.
 
My apologies. It just appears to me that you are going along with people who agree with your point of view and ignoring the work I have done, and explained on this forum.



Yet this skeptic is an expert in analyzing data, including science and technical journals. Yet you doubt both my expertise, and that of the laboratories that did the initial c14 tests.

Apology accepted. Let's leave it there and thanks.
 
On the same matter, I found out recently that they had found mummified dinosaurs... Appreciate that some are fossilized but I recall seeing some that weren't...
It truly makes me wonder what's holding the scientific community back from doing carbon testing on the tissues apart from prejudices.

There was a thread called the beef with science. I dont have a beef with science. Science is a concept/methodology. How can you have a beef with something that's abstract?
I have a beef with the vocal scientists/atheists who are pressurizing the rest of their community and hindering human progress for the sake of their philosophical stance.
I also have a beef with closet scientists who dont agree with the aforementioned yet keep quiet because they are afraid to lose grants, credentials etc.

This case is a very good example and as I was reading the volume of comments on the shroud of Turin it made me realize that the more open minded are not the ones we would have in mind.
If as a scientist, you doubt everybody's opinions but yours or the people who agree with you you have no business being in science and this applies to the new graduate in Science as well as the famouse PhD high credential moron.
 
If as a scientist, you doubt everybody's opinions but yours or the people who agree with you you have no business being in science and this applies to the new graduate in Science as well as the famouse PhD high credential moron.
I'm not sure whether this barb is aimed at the mainstream or the deviant, both could be made to fit this description.
 
Applies to anyone that fits the description. No restriction here.
Ok. I asked because it seemed somewhat ambiguous.

I just wonder how that would work out with someone such as Alfred Wegener (plate tectonics), or others who have gone against accepted consensus and eventually been found to be right. It seems the view you put forward would act as a huge brake against any kind of innovation in science - which frankly is what we already have, but I guess you'd like more inertia.
 
Ok. I asked because it seemed somewhat ambiguous.

I just wonder how that would work out with someone such as Alfred Wegener (plate tectonics), or others who have gone against accepted consensus and eventually been found to be right. It seems the view you put forward would act as a huge brake against any kind of innovation in science - which frankly is what we already have, but I guess you'd like more inertia.

Typoz,
You either misread me or I didn't formulate my thought properly. You cite an example that embodies exactly what I am talking about.
Skepticism is to be embedded in Science, this is how it moves forward. Skepticism is about doubting other people's position as well as yours. Nowadays, for loads of scientists and so called gatekeepers (Dawkins, Novella, Harris and the likes) it's all about doubting everything that's outside dogma.
Did I make myself clearer?

When I started this thread I wanted to expose how dogma creates inertia. They wont do any carbon dating on the dinosaur tissues because it is supposedly millions of years old. The fact that tissue survives more than 100k years goes already beyond what we know and I find Schweitzer's explanation about preservation of the tissue (presence of iron) rather weak.
Nobody ever questions how the age of the strata is calculated because it's hard enrooted in Science. Lots of scientists find it perfectly normal to have inconstancy in strata all over the globe, to find that in places like the Grand Canyon one strata is missing.

Who is questioning this in the scientific community? Nobody. It's considered heresy. Instead of questioning the things they believe in they leave it to the creationists and their agenda to "do" the work.
And people with a true inquiring mind are left sandwiched between those two.

I will close my post with this little of observation. A couple of years ago I read something in a book about evolution saying somehting along the lines of "we are lucky to have fossils. If we didn't it wouldnt matter. Evolution is true"
This was Richard Dawkins in his book greatest show on earth. If this man is a man of science then we are in deep shit

This is longer science this is faith and this scary because faith with evidence leads to endoctrination.

Anyway I am beating a dead horse here. True honest and logical people know that Science has been hijacked by people with an agenda.
 
On the same matter, I found out recently that they had found mummified dinosaurs... Appreciate that some are fossilized but I recall seeing some that weren't...
It truly makes me wonder what's holding the scientific community back from doing carbon testing on the tissues apart from prejudices.

Interesting, do you have a link? As to the Carbon dating, that would probably be due Carbon dating being of no use for old objects like dinosaurs. The use of the word 'mummified' is sometimes used for an animal that died in a dry climate, leaving not just bones, but skin as well. Of course, if by mummified, you mean wrapped in bandages, then yes, Carbon dating would be in order.

There was a thread called the beef with science. I dont have a beef with science. Science is a concept/methodology. How can you have a beef with something that's abstract?
I have a beef with the vocal scientists/atheists who are pressurizing the rest of their community and hindering human progress for the sake of their philosophical stance.
I also have a beef with closet scientists who dont agree with the aforementioned yet keep quiet because they are afraid to lose grants, credentials etc.

The problem I have with this argument is it is one often used by creationists who want to pretend their work is of value, and that creationism is a valid alternative. Of the creationist papers I have read, only 2 were of scientific value. The first was on the slow rate of production for certain proteins, which on it's own would suggest evolution was unlikely. However, after a little bit of research I found there are other biological processes that produce the same proteins at a faster rate. The second paper was on artificial intelligence, and had nothing to do with creationism, but the paper is promoted by creationists because there is an irrelevant passage in it stating the author is a young earth creationist! All the other papers I have read have been of no value.

As to losing credibility, if a paper is so ground breaking as to alter the course of science, this would raise their credibility. Scientists have egos after all, and while this does cause problems for those who don't want to let go of a pet theory, I doubt there is a consensus of scientists repressing other peoples work. Except in evolution of course. ;)

This case is a very good example and as I was reading the volume of comments on the shroud of Turin it made me realize that the more open minded are not the ones we would have in mind.
If as a scientist, you doubt everybody's opinions but yours or the people who agree with you you have no business being in science and this applies to the new graduate in Science as well as the famouse PhD high credential moron.

Exactly. That's why we have peer review, flawed though the process can be. Roger's paper, and the 'get me off your fucking mailing list' paper are classic examples of that. That's why I base my arguments on reading actual science papers (and occasionally doing some amateur science myself). The problem here is that many scientific papers are behind pay walls, so you can not read all the papers on the subject without spending money. All we are left with is either a brief summary, or snippets on a web site that can, and often are, taken out of context. A problem for all of us who are interested in science as a hobby.
 
I will close my post with this little of observation. A couple of years ago I read something in a book about evolution saying somehting along the lines of "we are lucky to have fossils. If we didn't it wouldnt matter. Evolution is true"
This was Richard Dawkins in his book greatest show on earth. If this man is a man of science then we are in deep shit

I've read that book and remember the passage you're referring to. You've snipped out a pretty salient part of the quotation. Do you recall why he said it would't matter?
 
I've read that book and remember the passage you're referring to. You've snipped out a pretty salient part of the quotation. Do you recall why he said it would't matter?

Yes, if I rememner correctly, because according to him they had enough evidence...
When we talk about fossils we talk about a physical piece of evidence, we talk about evolution of phenotypes. Fossil record is one of the strongest arguments for macro evolution.
It's like finding the DNA of a murderer on a crime scene; it is that critical!

One must always rembember is that Science is about what is observable . Nobody has ever observed macro evolution because of the time scale but as a result this is why macro-evolution falls back into the theory realm. The most plausible scenario; that's all it is.
 
Interesting, do you have a link? As to the Carbon dating, that would probably be due Carbon dating being of no use for old objects like dinosaurs. The use of the word 'mummified' is sometimes used for an animal that died in a dry climate, leaving not just bones, but skin as well. Of course, if by mummified, you mean wrapped in bandages, then yes, Carbon dating would be in order.

Check out this one http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html . Note that my argument is about dinosaur tissue. Tissue that is not meant to survive past the 100k year mark and yet it's there. Tests have been done and it is not biofilm, there is no bacteria there.
Tissue = organic material. Organic means it can be carbon dated. But it's not because it's "supposed" to be millions of years old something that carbon dating can measure since it's only viable up until 50k years. This is basic logic here but... oh wait... it's 67million year old so let's forget about that little tiny thing that doesnt fit in the current paradigm.

The problem I have with this argument is it is one often used by creationists who want to pretend their work is of value, and that creationism is a valid alternative. Of the creationist papers I have read, only 2 were of scientific value. The first was on the slow rate of production for certain proteins, which on it's own would suggest evolution was unlikely. However, after a little bit of research I found there are other biological processes that produce the same proteins at a faster rate. The second paper was on artificial intelligence, and had nothing to do with creationism, but the paper is promoted by creationists because there is an irrelevant passage in it stating the author is a young earth creationist! All the other papers I have read have been of no value.

If scientists were as free to voice what they think then some contreversial subjects wouldnt be left to creationists. But because they are you get that interference which gets the whol image murky.
You get all those people winging about conspiracy theorists and yet do nothing about addressing points one by one. Let's not forget that because a lie is believed by many it makes it a truth.
Also remember that an argument falls on its own merit something that both "skeptics"/scientists and creationists tend to forget.
 
Yes, if I rememner correctly, because according to him they had enough evidence...
When we talk about fossils we talk about a physical piece of evidence, we talk about evolution of phenotypes. Fossil record is one of the strongest arguments for macro evolution.
It's like finding the DNA of a murderer on a crime scene; it is that critical!

One must always rembember is that Science is about what is observable . Nobody has ever observed macro evolution because of the time scale but as a result this is why macro-evolution falls back into the theory realm. The most plausible scenario; that's all it is.

Yes, exactly. The rest of the quotation was that there was enough evidence independant of the fossil record. His argument was in response to the much repeated assertion that if the TOE were true there would be more "intermediary" fossils. With this added context, the quote doesn't have the same ridiculous connotation that you gave to it. And of course that book and the other books he's written on the TOE go into detail as to what he thinks that evidence is.

As for the rest of your post - while I'm of the view that macroevolution is simply the result of lots of microevolution, the way you put it there at least provides the basis for a discussion - where you're initial phrasing really didn't.

This thread isn't about evolution- but this little exchange does highlight a relevant point to this thread. I've never studied much about the shroud of turin but have been reading this thread with interest. The discussion was really starting to go somewhere when the participants were delving into the details. The discussion and descriptions of the various work that has gone on on this topic have drawn attention to several of the subtleties and nuances that should be paid attention to when reading research (or doing research for that matter).

Where the discussion broke down was when posters just accused the other of being biased, and the focus on the details stopped.

I don't need to highlight particular poster in this thread - this happens in many threads. It just happens to be a particularly good example for what can make the difference between really good discussion and not-so-good discussion as it has strong examples of both.
 
Look Arouet, I am pointing out what seems to be a logical flaw. Remove the fossil record and you are missing one massive piece of evidence that supports macro evolution... I cannot agree with Dawkins and I am not interested in what he has to say. I am more inclined to hear what PZ Myers has to say but that's just me...

Meanwhile, in Australia, a man just fished what appears to be a 95 million year old species. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-the-depths-of-the-ocean-20150121-12uuhb.html
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-the-depths-of-the-ocean-20150121-12uuhb.html
Did you hear of that one??
 
I haven't read the whole thread but here is a couple of documentaries on the Shroud of Turin that might interest you all.

OK, I eventually found time to see the second video, it contains the usual problems with a youtube video, that is, selective evidence from pro authenticity people only.

The mention of Bilirubin, a constituent of hemoglobin, for example is also found in plants. Even if it is blood, that does not tell us were the blood came from, and we know the shroud is contanimated with male and female genetic material.

The many experts who claimed the area looked like it was patched are not named.

The florescent area that was described as serum is still not backed up by science. If anyone can present me with a paper that demonstrates how this area was determined to be serum, I would much appreciate it.

Rogers paper I have dealt with.

So all I need to do is to wait for Bippy to present the findings I asked for, including a paper where they did a chemical analysis as part of a radiocarbon test. Perhaps he his still measuring heads.
 
Ok time to revive this thread.

It appears that they found blood cells again in a dinosaur bone, one that was supposed to have lived 75 million years ago. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/10/tech/dinosaur-preserved-cells/

now to my knowledge blood cells are organic materials aren't they?

Why do they still refuse to carbon date those?

See somebody posted a thread whose title was the beef with Science. There is no beef with science there is a beef with dogmatic scientists and Science happens to be done by more and more of them...

Whatever the results may be I am sure scientists will find a way to explain them. And worst case scenario if it is a huge blow to the theory of evolution so be it. Science doesnt give a shit about emotion. At the end of the day it's just a frigging methodology.
 
I don't understand why after 15 pages questions are still asked about carbon dating. By now the usefulness as well as limitations of the method have already been covered ... haven't they?
 
I don't understand why after 15 pages questions are still asked about carbon dating. By now the usefulness as well as limitations of the method have already been covered ... haven't they?

Yes everybody knows that it is pointless to carbon date something that is older than 50k years.
You seem tonbe missing the point I am making which is it is assumed that dinosaurs lives 65+ million years ago. It was never demonstrated. Yet scientists dont find it odd to find soft tissue something that has a lifespan of 100k years at best. It is organic matter this is all that matters so it can be carbon dated.

Dogma doesn't belong in Science.
 
Back
Top