Carbon dating, dinosaurs and the shroud of Turin

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by Roms, May 9, 2014.

  1. Roms

    Roms New

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    50
    Hi All,


    I have been meaning to post this for a while now. It all started as I was reacting to a comment on Twitter and somehow someway got involved into a “discussion” with PZ Myers and… his fans J.

    At some point I asked him what he was making of the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones and his response was “it’s partially mineralized tissue in a 70 million + year old bone. It does not help the creationist claim”. Then, I asked why cannot we do carbon dating on that soft tissue his answer was “Why would you do that? It’s 70+ million years old”. Whilst I fully appreciate that if you come from that angle, ie using the strata to date the fossil, this shouldn’t get in the way of dating the tissue. At the end of the day, tissue is something organic and so it can be dated. I understand that tissue doesn’t decay at a set rate but it is something that should be gone after 100k years; there should not be any trace of it and yet there is.

    I left the conversation on that topic with somebody linking to an article regarding the latest development of that topic. Coincidence or not, Mary Schweitzer and her team had recently published in article in which they explained that Iron may be the reason why the tissue has been preserved for so long (http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html ). My curiosity remained intact and I started to do a bit more research and tried to understand why nobody had “pushed” scientists to do carbon dating on dinosaur tissues.

    So that had me looking up carbon dating method and how that works since my knowledge about it needed to be strengthened; I found out that the presence of Iron shouldn’t falsify the results. Then I wanted to learn more about the strata dating because it was the argument I got thrown out by Myers’ ilk. And I have to say that until now I am still very much puzzled. The logic is that the lower strata are older than the younger strata, that I have no problem accepting; it makes sense. What I don’t understand, despite looking it up, is that fossils are used to determine the age of a strata and then when a fossil is found we looked in which strata it is found to determine its age (circular reasoning much?). Some guy posted the same question on yahoo and got a response saying “it’s not quite how it works” but ended up saying the same.

    After that I decided to probe the issue further and look up if no carbon dating had been done. This is where I stumbled upon a rock. My quick investigation led me to various creationist websites which is something that I want avoid when researching a science problem. I still went ahead and checked what the findings were. It turns out that lots of dinosaur tissues have been found. Mary Schweitzer’s case is not an isolated one. But the shocker was more that the results of the dating done on those flew against what is taught in a science classroom. Apparently the tissues date back to between 29,000-40,000 before or era.

    Now, if this is true this is a big blow to the theory of evolution since it is asserted that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.

    I have linked some videos at the bottom of the post so you can look for yourself.


    My take away is not so much the age of the dinosaur tissue. Be thousands or millions years old I don’t care as it is not going to change my philosophical stance. My take away is rather how scientism/dogma/assumptions get in the way of science. What scientists have to lose to look further into this? If this is something anomalous let’s look for an explanation. Science is the way to figure out how stuff works and so it will; it might take 10 years, 100+ years, 1,000 years but who cares really?

    In this case Myers and his ilk very much resemble the catholic fanatics who didn’t want to have the shroud of Turin carbon dated because it might return back results that could shake their faith. I would add that in this case it is far more dangerous because people use so called “scientific” arguments.



    Video Links



     
    Johnny likes this.
  2. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    The carbon dating of the shroud of Turin was supported by the church at the highest level. It has long been an object of veneration, but like other 'miraculous' objects, there is no compulsion to believe in its authenticity. I haven't followed the to and fro of debate regarding the shroud, but the last I heard it was acknowledged the dating sample came from an area of cloth added after a repair following a fire. Experts don't seem to have any idea how it was made, because explanations fail to recognise the technology of the time. I always found the shroud intriguing, and having a reasonably sound grasp of the potential technologies involved, can't answer the questions its creation throws up.
     
  3. tim

    tim New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,396
    Yes, Ray Rogers who original accepted the carbon 14 test changed his mind when a woman (can't remember her name) did some investigatory work on the area that was tested. She contacted Rogers (to tell him that the test had been flawed because it was a piece of a patch) who was angry and determined
    to put an end to this woman's argument by re-examining a tiny piece which was still in his possession.

    Apparently she was right, there was cotton interwoven into the linen.

    FWIW My take is the shroud is very probably (99% certain) genuine because the very best scientists think so. http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
    http://shroud.com/78exam.htm

    http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF


    The technology needed to produce the "perfect in every anatomical detail", encoded image ( which is also a photographic negative) onto a piece of cloth, didn't exist in the 13th century and as far as I understand it, still doesn't exist now.

    It is absolutely not the work Da Vinci although I sense someone may tell me I'm talking nonsense :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2014
  4. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Carbon dating is useful for dating back to about 60-70 thousand years ago. Beyond that other dating techniques need to be used.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel and Typoz like this.
  5. bishop

    bishop Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    641
    Maybe not quite. This show details some ways in which it could have been made, and it's fairly interesting. It's available on Netflix streaming too.

    http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/series/1003102/secrets/3375251/the-turin-shroud
     
  6. tim

    tim New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,396
    Bishop, you are a friend of formal dining room set so thanks for the link. But even though the first video which supports authenticity, the second one is pure bullshit. No offence. I don't want to even comment on it :)
     
  7. bishop

    bishop Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    641
    You mean the camera obscura technique? Did you watch the entire show?
     
  8. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    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
     
    tim likes this.
  9. tim

    tim New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,396
    Very good, Gabriel.
    I would urge anyone who is interested to visit this website which is the most comprehensive.
    http://shroud.com/

    Just one a of many examples of why the image is so incredibly perplexing>>

    >> even the serum from the blood runs at the correct angle and the presence and redness of bilirubin. Bilirubin is only released into the blood stream when the body is under enormous shocking pain.

    How would a medieval forger know that ?
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2014
    Johnny likes this.
  10. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    As someone who has worked in imaging techniques all my adult life, I have no doubt the shroud represents a human figure in a way that is as close to photographic as makes no difference. It can't be a representational art work, because the methods to create it did not exist in medieval times (and would be hard pressed to produce it even today), it sits outside any contemporaneous notion of artistic realism, and pigments are lacking in the fibre. Better qualified experts say it is an accurate simulacrum of a crucified man, and I defer to their knowledge.

    That leaves the possibility of a unique image transfer technique, without precedent or successor for at least half a millennium, of a crucified medieval man. Which is at least as difficult to conceive of, to my mind, as an image of Christ crucified. Is it an image of Jesus? My convictions certainly wouldn't rest on the fact.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2014
  11. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
  12. Roms

    Roms New

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    50
    I knew about that. The whole point of my op is that people assume that an artifact is millions years old and therefore don't try to carbon date it. See , to start with, noone is supposed to find tissue in fossils more than 100k year old let alone millions of years old.

    IF the carbon dating that is referred to in the videos I posted is true then this is an extremely serious situation because with that would go one of the main factors that make evolution possible and that is time!
     
    Johnny likes this.
  13. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    I have not watched the vids, but if they are produced by ID'ers than I don't need to because they are grossly wrong. You should be familiar with Talk Origins I assume.
    P.S. The part where you say 'noone should find tissue in fossils 100k years old let alone millions. Well for the sake of accuracy you should have said: noone is expected to have been found'
    The point is, nature doesn't care to meet our expectations.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2014
  14. Iyace

    Iyace Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    Then when Carroll says something like " Psi is impossible from a physical standpoint ", you agree that that doesn't mean anything?
     
  15. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,965
    Does he say that? Or does he just refer to "survival"?
     
  16. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,017
    I think it is a good point - at the very least, if negligible C-14 was found in the sample, it would suggest that it was actual dinosaur tissue!

    I also get a feeling that science is wary of tests that might give the 'wrong result'.

    David
     
  17. Roms

    Roms New

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    50
    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.
     
  18. Roms

    Roms New

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    50
    Which makes Myers and most of the scientific community more bias (bigot?) than the religious people they like to criticize so much.
     
  19. Roms

    Roms New

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    50
    Thank you but no thank you for talk origins. I'd rather read sciencedaily or other websites. People who say that one cannot have a systemic approach when it comes to the origin of life to rebut Michael Behe aren't to be considered scientists. I read something along these lines. Every single natural phenomena, every single field in science has to rely on a systemic approach that involves Maths.

    I said noone is supposed not noone should and you are saying noone is expected.
    "Nature doesn't care to meet our expectations". Well if you want to be very strict you shouldn't consider Nature a person because is nature conscious, is the whole of Nature conscious? That is if you come from a strict materialistic approach obviously.

    One last point about IDers. Consider this. A fact is a fact regardless of whom it is presented by. Whether it comes for an IDer or another it needs to be looked. Then comes the part where cross checking happens.

    Mankind suffers from prejudices and assumptions and the more I read people's comments the more I understand that Science is no exception to the rule.
     
  20. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Okie dokie, God did it.
     

Share This Page