Chronicling the follies of religion and superstition, the virtues of skepticism, and the wonders of the real (natural) universe as revealed by science. Plus other interesting and educational stuff.
"Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure."
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed”.
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
…The study claims that neutron emissions from the earthquake that shook Jerusalem centuries ago could have created the image. It is also believed that the quake messed up the radiocarbon levels. This could be a reason that many believe it to be fake…
…If the massive ancient earthquake did mess up radiocarbon levels, then those dates and thoughts could be totally inaccurate. The new theory believes the earthquake hit around the same time that Jesus Christ was said to have died and when the Shroud of Turin was created.
Should this be true, it really could mean that the Shroud of Turin is the fabric that was used to cover the body of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion in A.D. 33.
That explanation is way too incredible and convenient. Yes, it may be that an earthquake actually happened. But the relation to Jesus is tenuous, since Jesus’ history is tenuous. The study claims a big earthquake could have happened which could have released neutron emissions that could have been at play in the image and dating. Sorry, too many “coulds”, with no evidence. We’ve had plenty of big earthquakes. Where is the precedence for neutron emissions or imprints on cloth? There isn’t any. They are piling “miracles” upon “miracles”.
Even if it is theoretically possible for earthquake-generated neutrons to have caused this kind of reaction, the study doesn’t address why this effect hasn’t been seen elsewhere in the archaeological record, Gordon Cook, a professor of environmental geochemistry at the University of Glasgow, explained.
“It would have to be a really local effect not to be measurable elsewhere,” Cook told Live Science. “People have been measuring materials of that age for decades now and nobody has ever encountered this.”
Exactly. It smacks of people of faith making stuff up from wishful thinking. I’d go so far to say this is nonsense and should be discarded. This is speculation, not science. It’s a HUGE stretch. Also, doesn’t the earthquake neutron blast sort of make this less… miraculous?
Scientists at MIT have discovered a “hidden flux” of material deep in the Earth’s mantle that would make the planet’s overall composition more similar to that of meteorites, supporting the theory that Earth arose from the collision of asteroids.
It’s widely thought that the Earth arose from violent origins: Some 4.5 billion years ago, a maelstrom of gas and dust circled in a massive disc around the sun, gathering in rocky clumps to form asteroids. These asteroids, gaining momentum, whirled around a fledgling solar system, repeatedly smashing into each other to create larger bodies of rubble — the largest of which eventually cooled to form the planets.
Countless theories, simulations and geologic observations support such a scenario. But there remains one lingering mystery: If the Earth arose from the collision of asteroids, its composition should resemble that of meteoroids, the small particles that break off from asteroids.
But to date, scientists have found that, quite literally, something doesn’t add up: Namely, the Earth’s mantle — the layer between the planet’s crust and core — is missing an amount of lead found in meteorites whose composition has been analyzed following impact with the Earth.
Much of the Earth is composed of rocks with a high ratio of uranium to lead (uranium naturally decays to lead over time). However, according to standard theories of planetary evolution, the Earth should harbor a reservoir of mantle somewhere in its interior that has a low ratio of uranium to lead, to match the composition of meteorites. But such a reservoir has yet to be discovered — a detail that leaves Earth’s origins hazy.
Now researchers in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences have identified a “hidden flux” of material in the Earth’s mantle that would make the planet’s overall composition much more similar to that of meteorites. This reservoir likely takes the form of extremely dense, lead-laden rocks that crystallize beneath island arcs, strings of volcanoes that rise up at the boundary of tectonic plates….
1) The age of the earth is almost always ascertained by methods which rely on unproven and tenuous assumptions. For instance, for radiometric dating results to be accurate, the sample must have remained in a closed system so that the mother and daughter isotopes could not have been affected. This is unlikely.
2) The methods used to achieve various dates contradict each other. Helium dating methods contradict Potassium/Argon dating methods, etc. This means that one or both methods is unreliable.
Regurgitating creationist websites doesn’t prove anything. Radiometric dating methods work. Here, go educate yourself:
- Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods -Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines: the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered, mathematical calculations are used, the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations and tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
- How fossils support the stages of evolutionary history
- Quality of the fossil record: Data bases and software for studying the quality of the fossil record.
- The basics of Radiometric dating methods
- Good overview with response to critiques by religious fundamentalists.
I Googled “helium dating contradicts potassium/argon dating” and the first two results were answers2prayer.org and creationism.org. Like I said, you’re just regurgitating the hogwash you’ve been fed.
There are many more reasons to reject the age of the earth provided by poor dating methods. Are there any reasons to accept the young-earth view, however? I think there are a few. My personal favorite is that DNA and organic matter has been recovered from dinosaur bones and other fossils generally dated to be millions of years old. Why is this significant? Because organic matter like this couldn’t survive past 20,000 years of age. It’s just not possible.
David Plaisted is a computer scientist for crying out loud! So, here’s where I’ll insert a non-fallacious genetic argument. If he isn’t a paleontologist or at the very least an archaeologist, he has no business writing essays on radiometric dating; he does not have the qualifications. Put it this way: would you want a non-Christian preaching this Sunday? I rest my case! Oh, by the way, everyone of Plaisted’s claims have been refuted by geologist Kevin R. Henke (read here). Please, some due diligence for once; have both sides of an argument prior to drawing a conclusion. I shouldn’t have to remind an honest person of that.
“My personal favorite is that DNA and organic matter has been recovered from dinosaur bones…” This sentence is grossly exaggerated; that claim was made twice aside from Mary Schweitzer. Both of those claims crumbled when scrutinized and peer reviewed. Thus, you are left with Schweitzer’s claim. She made her discovery in 2006. Since then, there has been some research regarding her findings.
- Kaye, Thomas G.; Gary Gaugler, Zbigniew Sawlowicz (July 30, 2008). “Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms”. PLoS ONE 3 (7): e2808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808. PMC 2483347. PMID 18665236. Retrieved 2012-10-06.
This paper refutes her findings.
- Peterson, JE; Lenczewski, ME; Reed, PS (October 2010). Stepanova, Anna. ed. “Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs”. PLoS ONE 5 (10): 13A. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013334. Retrieved 2012-10-06.
This paper supports her findings.
My point: you can’t go around drawing such conclusions. There isn’t enough evidence to support it.
Ultimately, I accept creation and a young earth because Christ did. Since He rose from the dead, I trust what He had to say about the matter.
The resurrection is a faith-based claim; it isn’t a factual historical event. I would much rather trust them who are searching for answers. I can’t trust people who draw conclusions without evidence.