Carbon dating, dinosaurs and the shroud of Turin

Okie dokie, God did it.

No a blind mindless watchmaker did it.
Everything is determined by chance this is why we cannot predict anything with the theory of evolution, probably one of the theories if not the only scientific theory with which one cannot predict anything. Scientific much??
 
Okie dokie, God did it.
Do you realise that there could be totally materialistic scenarios involving Intelligent Design? For example, the universe is reckoned to have been around for nearly 14 billion years, so there would have been plenty of time for an alien race to have developed and then experimented with designing life on a number of planets......

David
 
Hi David,

Re your first point, Schweitzer and her team confirmed that it is dinosaur bone tissue. Funny thing is when the discovery was made lots of so called skeptics and atheistic scientist were very prompt at saying that the tissue had been contaminated, that it was actually biofilm bacteria... and this without even looking at the evidence!!!
In the second video I posted it shows that they did further tests on the tissues and contamination was ruled out.
Again if the carbon dating is true the evolution theory goes out the window...

Re your second point, you are spot on. Science is now being run by dogmatic people end of story. Nobody is willing to venture in alleys where they might be confronted to facts that crush long established theories.
Somehow I had missed the point that a carbon dating had been done and come up with the 'wrong' answer (there are too many videos placed on here to view them all).

I tend to think that science has a tendency to push techniques like C-14 dating too far. I mean, maybe it is just harder to avoid contamination at the time of collecting the samples than people think.

It still seems hard to believe that dinosaurs were alive so recently, because surely their bones are recovered from deep rock strata?

David
 
Do you realise that there could be totally materialistic scenarios involving Intelligent Design? For example, the universe is reckoned to have been around for nearly 14 billion years, so there would have been plenty of time for an alien race to have developed and then experimented with designing life on a number of planets......

David
Of course I do. My objection is the use of the term Intelligent Design which is a savvy rebranding of creationism to not mean something such as alien directed DNA tinkering. I said this previously, call it whatever, but don't call it Intelligent Design
 
Of course I do. My objection is the use of the term Intelligent Design which is a savvy rebranding of creationism to not mean something such as alien directed DNA tinkering. I said this previously, call it whatever, but don't call it Intelligent Design
I think you will find that ID will get condemned by the science community whatever its name. This is just one example of how science ends up distorting evidence with dogma - effectively cutting us off from possibilities that don't seem to fit.

I would suggest you put aside the whole religious issue (and please remember that, like you (I presume) and many proponents, I am not religious) and watch this debate between scientists.


Do you still think ID is the product of a bunch of religious nutters?

David
 
Do you realise that there could be totally materialistic scenarios involving Intelligent Design? For example, the universe is reckoned to have been around for nearly 14 billion years, so there would have been plenty of time for an alien race to have developed and then experimented with designing life on a number of planets......

David
Care to elaborate on how that alien race came to be?
 
I think you will find that ID will get condemned by the science community whatever its name. This is just one example of how science ends up distorting evidence with dogma - effectively cutting us off from possibilities that don't seem to fit.

I would suggest you put aside the whole religious issue (and please remember that, like you (I presume) and many proponents, I am not religious) and watch this debate between scientists.


Do you still think ID is the product of a bunch of religious nutters?

David
I am stating ID has one specific meaning which was coined by a particular group of people of the Christian faith. Anyone else with an idea involving alien or some great incorporeal consciousness, whatever, needs to coin a new term to avoid confusing one with other
 
I am stating ID has one specific meaning which was coined by a particular group of people of the Christian faith. Anyone else with an idea involving alien or some great incorporeal consciousness, whatever, needs to coin a new term to avoid confusing one with other
Well you can't really assert your linguistic demand on other people, and it may well be that the evidence for some form of intelligent design is rather strong, without it being clear what sort of entity could be responsible.

Honest science doesn't get involved in these ideological arguments, it just reports the evidence straight. Unfortunately there seems to less and less honest science available. If the C-14 data is as it is stated in the video, it needs accounting for.

David
 
Well you can't really assert your linguistic demand on other people, and it may well be that the evidence for some form of intelligent design is rather strong, without it being clear what sort of entity could be responsible.


Honest science doesn't get involved in these ideological arguments, it just reports the evidence straight. Unfortunately there seems to less and less honest science available. If the C-14 data is as it is stated in the video, it needs accounting for.

David
Unfortunately most biologists do not get involved in ideological debate. I can not find one expert reference to there being found carbon 14 in the dinosaur sample, though I find many creation site claiming such.
 
Care to elaborate on how that alien race came to be?
Well obviously I can only speculate! One option would be that there is a chemistry of alien life that is more conducive to natural selection (producing a fitness space that is easier for optimisation) - they evolved with it, but then decided to design life on earth in another way! Perhaps that chemistry required different physical conditions - much hotter, or much colder, and their scientists wanted to find ways to bring life to hostile planets like earth!

If ID is simply ruled out of consideration by science, it becomes blind to such a possibility!

Ideally I think science should operate completely without reference to these sorts of idealogical issues. For example, suppose there is C-14 in dinosaur bones, people need to know that. It might indicate something profound, or it might indicate that there are practical limits to the time range of C-14 dating.

Watch the first video that Roms put up. it is a conference video about C-14 dating of dinosaurs.

David
 
No good, Chairs, not a single mention of talk.origins in that scholarly search.
I expect this type of a reply coming from an idealist. Where should science point its telescopes and microscopes to find God or some great consciousness? What would that evidence look like?
 
steve 001 What would that evidence look like?

I think it would look like a man with white hair and a white beard (Billy Connolly) sitting in one of Formal Dining Room set's chairs, somewhere in orbit around
Uranus. Are you saying you can't see that ?
 
Last edited:
steve 001 What would that evidence look like?

I think it would look like a man with white hair and a white beard (Billy Connolly) sitting in one of Formal Dining Room set's chairs, somewhere in orbit around
Uranus. Are you saying you can't see that ?
You do have a good sense of humor. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Cameras obscura were almost certainly around in the late medieval period. There's some controversial evidence such devices were used as an aid to drawing by Renaissance masters, but it's inconclusive. The problem was fixing the image, and that didn't happen until the C19th. If the knowledge was available, how did it get lost? The bas relief idea is too simplistic to show the complexity of the shroud image. It would have taken unprecedented genius to reveal the complex image of a crucified adult at that time, like finding someone had developed personal inter-stellar transport while the moon shot programme was under way.

This was the cutting edge of artistic representation at the time the medieval shroud was conceived: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Fra_Angelico_026.jpg

The problem with the camera obscura method is that it has been debunked a long time ago as a method to produce the shroud simply because it doesn't produce all of the unique features of that shroud image, but the problem goes much worse for the camera obscura method because there is very good evidence that the shroud is much older then the 13th century. people that do argue for the camera obscura method simply don't understand the image on the shroud of turin.


Here is a good article by Head Photographer of the Sturp team Barrie Schwortz who shreds through Nicholas Allen's Camera Obscura theory as an explanation of the shroud image.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf

But as I said the problem gets even worse. Lets say that the camera obscura method was available in the 13th century? If so you then have to scale that date back to the 12th century because in the Hungarian pray manuscript dated to 1190 ad we have an illustration of what can only be the shroud of turin complete with the 3way herringbone weave and the unique 4 poker holes found only in the shroud.

Then we have the perfect blood stain congruent match between the sudarium of Oviedo and the shroud of turin which Marc Guscin and his team of researchers showed that the shroud and the sudarium were wrapped around the same body at very close time intervals of an hour or 2 at most, and since the sudarium's history is indisputable going back to 614ad, that makes the shroud at least as old as the sudarium of Oviedo.
https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

There is a plethora of evidences that make the shroud much older then the 13th century which makes the camera obscura theory(which has been shown many times to not be the explanation for the image of the shroud of turin) ridiculous at best and ludicrous at worst.

Remember also that Agnostic Chemist Ray Rogers in his excellent peer reviewed chemical analysis published in the secular chemical journal Thermochimica acta(which someone already posted the link to in here) did a vanillin test and the dated the shroud off of this test to be between 1300 and 3000 years old. the reason for the wide dates is that Rogers had to account for the different conditions in which the shroud could have been stored in.

I also doubt a camera obscura could account for the xray information encoded into the regions of the hands,wrist, left femur, Jaw, gums and teeth of the man of the shroud. I doubt someone has an xray machine in the 6th century or first century.

You also have to account for a medieval forger understanding what rigor mortis was more then 700 years ago because the image on the shroud itself is of a person in rigor mortis. Rigor mortis doesn't last more then 48 hours. How long do the biblical accounts say Christ was in that tomb? No more then 2 days or a bit more or less. Friday evening to sunday morning ;)



This is exactly why I could never have formed a well informed opinion about the shroud within my first 2 years of researching it. it wasn't until my 4th year of research that I started to believe in the authenticity of the shroud as the image of the historical Jesus, and once I started to believe this, the inference to the best explanation for that image took over, and What I believe the best explanation for that image is that it was caused by the resurrection event. of course you cant the resurrection scientifically but its more then reasonable to infer to the best explanation,and in order to do this you would need to study the shroud in the totality of its evidences.


A simple googling might help a bit in having a general understanding of the shroud but to gain a deeper understanding you would need to put in the leg work of research to get that far
 
Well, the issue of circular reasoning is not that much true.What you do is actually date things using radiometric dating, that is, with various methods that include all sort of radioactive particles, from Uranium to Rubidium. If you grab a fossil of a dinosaur, you can run at least half a dozen different radiometric datings into the fossils layer, all agreeing that it's millions of years old. Now, if you did tried carbon dating to the bone itself, you would still get a result, although a very weird one. The reason for this will pretty much depends on what you are trying to use to carbon date it. The most advanced way is a machine named AMS.

Now, you must take into account that, given the way radiocarbon dating is done, it's an extremely, and I mean, extremely delicate process, and the older the sample, the more weird data you get when contamination is done. For example, a 17.000 yrs old sample with a 1% contamination of modern carbon will give results 600 years younger. A 34.000 yrs old sample with a 1% contamination with modern carbon will give results 4000 years younger. So, as you can see, the older the sample, the less contamination you need to give you weird results. Carbon dating was designed, more or less, to resist a few contamination here and there, given it was made for "recent" objects.

Of course, don't even get me started as to how few contamination a 60.000.000 yrs old sample would require to give you false results which is way beyond the scope originally conceived for carbon dating, and given that AMS, which is the best reliable method, pretty much requires a lot of preparation of the sample, contamination eventually will creep in.

This gets a bit worse when one thinks what is a fossil. A fossil is a mineralized organic thing. Mineralization involves the replacement of old organic tissue with newer minerals, like, for example, carbon 14. I'm not sure how much of this may contamine your sample, even before you find it.

So, if you carbon date a dinosaur bone, what you are actually carbon-dating is how much dust and whatnot the bone acquired while being at the museum. Also, you must take into account that carbon dating a dinosaur bone would be at odds with the other evidence the "soft tissue" gave, such as that experiment that show that T. rex collagen is more close to birds collagen than to any other specie alive ( or well, from a very big sample of species alive actually) which support the evolutionary model of birds "coming from" dinosaurs, which pretty much proves ( for the gazillion time ) that the model is right in it's general terms, after all, it's a prediction the theory makes.

Hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top