Proof that the bible is correct!

[Trevor Hill]

LightningMcSteve said:

It's funny how they use Radio Carbon dating to try and prove the age of the wood, but think Radio Carbon dating is nonsense when it puts the Turin Shroud at between 1260 and 1390.

Whats 1390 years between religious zealots?

[Trevor Hill]

The Excession said:

him_over_there said:

qube_TA said:

Surely no-one, even creationists believe in the Ark story.

No, there are creationists who believe in tne ark story. Some even believe there were dinosaurs on the ark.

It's almost funny, you should see how much silage a farmer needs to collect in a summer just to feed his cows for a few winter months.

Seriously the ark would've needed to be super tanker sized essel to accomodate a few thousand heads of animals and all the food and water they would need.

There's another point, what year was the solar still invented in? Where did all the drinking water for these animals come from? How was it stored? What happened when it went mouldy?

You`ll be telling us next that the world wasnt created in 7 days.

[LightningMcSteve]

Trevor Hill said:

The Excession said:

him_over_there said:

qube_TA said:

Surely no-one, even creationists believe in the Ark story.

No, there are creationists who believe in tne ark story. Some even believe there were dinosaurs on the ark.

It's almost funny, you should see how much silage a farmer needs to collect in a summer just to feed his cows for a few winter months.

Seriously the ark would've needed to be super tanker sized essel to accomodate a few thousand heads of animals and all the food and water they would need.

There's another point, what year was the solar still invented in? Where did all the drinking water for these animals come from? How was it stored? What happened when it went mouldy?

You`ll be telling us next that the world wasnt created in 7 days.

That's right we will, because it was 6 days

[jbi]

LightningMcSteve said:

It's funny how they use Radio Carbon dating to try and prove the age of the wood, but think Radio Carbon dating is nonsense when it puts the Turin Shroud at between 1260 and 1390.

I think the argument is that carbon dating is only "accurate" to the previous 2000 years or so.

By what "accurate" is is anyone's guess.

Indeed seems odd that suddenly carbon dating is significant

Edited by jbi on Thursday 29th April 13:19

[Conian]

Trevor Hill said:

LightningMcSteve said:

It's funny how they use Radio Carbon dating to try and prove the age of the wood, but think Radio Carbon dating is nonsense when it puts the Turin Shroud at between 1260 and 1390.

Whats 1390 years between religious zealots?

that issue has been sorted out, they dated a very manky part that showed signs of being a repaired section.
worth reading up on, just dont ask me where cos I am too lazy to find links

[LightningMcSteve]

jbi said:

LightningMcSteve said:

It's funny how they use Radio Carbon dating to try and prove the age of the wood, but think Radio Carbon dating is nonsense when it puts the Turin Shroud at between 1260 and 1390.

I think the argument is that carbon dating is only "accurate" to the previous 2000 years or so.

By what "accurate" is is anyone's guess.

Indeed seems odd that suddenly carbon dating is significant

Edited by jbi on Thursday 29th April 13:19

The half life of Carbon 14 is about 5500 years, so you can use it to date things upto 50,000 years.

The point I was making is that some creationists will rubbish science when it suits them, but accept it if it agrees with them.

In any case, even if the date came back as being 2000 years old, it's obviosuly a painting. If you cover your face in paint, make up or whatever and press a cloth over your face, when you flatten the cloth it will look like Homer Simpson has fired his makeup gun at it. It certainly won't look like a portrait of Robert Powell.

[HiRich]

LightningMcSteve said:

The point I was making is that some creationists will rubbish science when it suits them, but accept it if it agrees with them.

In any case, even if the date came back as being 2000 years old, it's obviosuly a painting. If you cover your face in paint, make up or whatever and press a cloth over your face, when you flatten the cloth it will look like Homer Simpson has fired his makeup gun at it. It certainly won't look like a portrait of Robert Powell.

And the point others have made is that they might actually be right on this one (the Turin Shroud). If you can get past the 13-14th Century carbon dating results, there's evidence that could take the Shroud easily back to the 4th Century and other pieces taking it back to the 1st Century. The theory can only be tested with a new dating which, even with improved techniques and smaller samples, is not going to happen for some time.

As for painting, it would use techniques and materials (blood products) not known before the 20th Century. If it is a fake, it is a mighty impressive one.