So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[jkwilliams]

Here is the presentation at the joint meeting of the Asia Oceanic Geosciences Society and the American Geophysical Union that was held on Aug. 13-17,2012 in Singapore:

 

 

In which the 22 samples which all have been dated since 1990 to an average age of 33000 BP.

But what are we meant to take from this? You seem to rely on carbon dating when you think it supports your beliefs but reject it when it doesn't. Please clarify.

[Zakuska]

But what are we meant to take from this? You seem to rely on carbon dating when you think it supports your beliefs but reject it when it doesn't. Please clarify.

I could say the same thing about you.  You reject all these young dates because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. Yet its you who claims the scientific upper hand and to believe in the C14 Dating to a flaw.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska

[Gray]

The problem of course with looking for isolated pieces of evidence for the plausibility or even possibility of a historical Book of Mormon, is that when you only count evidence for (which, as we've seen in this case, sometimes evaporates when you take a closer look), and discount the evidence against, you end up with a distorted picture:

 

http://i.imgur.com/82q2VFL.gifv

 

When you cut out all the shots of this guy trying and failing to hit the target, and leave only the few successful instances, you're left with the distorted picture of a guy who appears to have preternatural aim. 

[jkwilliams]

I could say the same thing about you.  You reject all these young dates because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. Yet its you who claims the scientific upper hand.

I have rejected only one young date, and that was because the archaeologists themselves said it was unreliable and did not meet their minimum criteria. I think it was wrong for FairMormon to use a date that the article cited had already discounted.

But, I believe it makes sense to reserve judgment about dates that are apparent anomalies and, from what I can see, have not been replicated or confirmed. If or when they are confirmed, I'm happy to accept them. In the meantime, I recognize that these anomalies come from some folks who have a definite agenda, and that makes me suspicious.

[rodheadlee]

What's really cool is how archaeologist get to throw out the anomalies but not the BoM apologists. Kind of like stacking the deck. Reminds me of the last chapter of the Minerva Experiment by James P Hogan. 

[jkwilliams]

What's really cool is how archaeologist get to throw out the anomalies but not the BoM apologists. Kind of like stacking the deck. Reminds me of the last chapter of the Minerva Experiment by James P Hogan.

No one is throwing out anomalies, as confirmed anomalies are often the precursors to what Kuhn calls a scientific revolution. But, as long as anomalies remain unconfirmed, it is absolutely appropriate to view them with skepticism, particularly when the source of the anomalies has a particular ax to grind, as in in this case.

[Zakuska]

What's really cool is how archaeologist get to throw out the anomalies but not the BoM apologists. Kind of like stacking the deck. Reminds me of the last chapter of the Minerva Experiment by James P Hogan. 

It's pretty telling how quickly these particular archeologists where censored and their Radio Carbon dating thrown out.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Zakuska

[VideoGameJunkie]

It's possible that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates correctly but what was written on those plates were just made up stories with messages on how to act and worship. It's possible not everything written on the plates was factual but Joseph Smith translated correctly the material he was given.

[jkwilliams]

It's pretty telling how quickly these particular archeologists where censored and their Radio Carbon dating thrown out.

It depends on the reason why. Although Mr. Armitage is claiming it's religious bias, it may well not be the reason their research was discounted.

Science is funny in that anomalies become discoveries if and when they are repeated and confirmed. Anomalies that cannot be reproduced end up as footnotes in history, like Pons and Fleischmann and their discovery of cold fusion or the guy who faked the link between vaccinations and autism. I think it's a bit premature to say one way or the other with Armitage and his young dating of dinosaurs.

Either way, you've been quite inconsistent here. You tout carbon 14 dating when you think it supports you, and you call it wildly inaccurate when it doesn't. You need to be consistent. As I said, I accept the dating of the dwarf mammoths from Alaska/Siberia, as that seems to be pretty solidly confirmed. I am quite skeptical of Armitage's dating of dinosaurs because it's anomalous and unconfirmed.

[Zakuska]

It depends on the reason why. Although Mr. Armitage is claiming it's religious bias, it may well not be the reason their research was discounted.

 

Well we seem to be conflating 2 different instances here so lets recap.

 

Mr Armitage, "A Darn Good Microscopist" (by All accounts) Publishes a paper in a peer reviewed Journal of finding "viable Tissue" under the electron microscope from a Triceratops horn. His paper says nothing about "creationism" or the age of this bone other than the fact it states that the bone was found in strata assumed to be 65 million years old. His peers deem his paper as "Just Fine". 

 

In February 2013, he published his findings in Acta Histochemica, a journal of cell and tissue research (M. H. Armitage and K. L. Anderson Acta Histochem. 115, 603–608; 2013). Two weeks later, he was fired from his job at California State University, Northridge (CSUN), where he managed the biology department’s electron and confocal microscopy suite.

 

He makes a comment to a student that the reason he thinks the tissue was found is because the "fossil" isn't as old as everyone assumes that it is. And the next day his boss comes in ranting about how his "religion" wasn't welcome on the campus. He reports the incident to his HR representative and is told to not worry about it. 2 weeks later he's canned.

 

The reason given... his position was "Temporary".  Even though his offer letter when he was hired stated his position was "permanent parttime".

 

Later his colleague sends a sample of the bone in for C14 testing and it comes back as 33,500 years old. (well within the supposed upper limit of c14 accuracy)

 

Its pretty safe to say that he was let go because of his "creationist/religious" leanings.  We'll have to see how his law suit goes.

 

The other group who's Dinosaurs all date to 33,000 or so. They are being censored by the scientific community. The labs they were using will no longer accept samples from them even though they have a bunch of T-rex and other bones they want to get dated. The assumption is they won't have any c14 in them. Yet as we have seen many bones still have viable tissue in them as well as measurable ammounts of c14 (Within the supposed limit of c14 accuracy).

 

And these aren't the only finds of this phenominon. They found viable tissue on bones under an electron microscope in the Museum of Natural History of London last year.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3117137/Blood-skin-cells-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones-Tissue-extracted-fossils-left-storage-century.html

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150609/ncomms8352/full/ncomms8352.html

 

Science is funny in that anomalies become discoveries if and when they are repeated and confirmed. Anomalies that cannot be reproduced end up as footnotes in history, like Pons and Fleischmann and their discovery of cold fusion or the guy who faked the link between vaccinations and autism. I think it's a bit premature to say one way or the other with Armitage and his young dating of dinosaurs.

Either way, you've been quite inconsistent here. You tout carbon 14 dating when you think it supports you, and you call it wildly inaccurate when it doesn't. You need to be consistent. As I said, I accept the dating of the dwarf mammoths from Alaska/Siberia, as that seems to be pretty solidly confirmed. I am quite skeptical of Armitage's dating of dinosaurs because it's anomalous and unconfirmed.

 

I'm very consistant jkw.  Personally I don't trust any c14 dating because its too fraught with unkownable variables.

 

We've seen that "hard Water" in caves in Nevada can throw off dating snail shell's in a c14 depleated environment by thousands of years.

 

That shows that c14 intake can be affected by an animals environment and what it eats and what its food source eats too. This is even confirmed by living creatures killed yesterday showing thousands of years old. It also shows that rates of c14 fixation vary in different tissues of the body too.

 

For it to be accurate you would have to know how much c14 was in the bone sample at time of death to begin with and not to mention that c14 production in the biosphere isn't constant to begin with.

 

According to c14 theory 65 million year old dino bones shouldn't have viable tissue on them, Nor should they have any measurable amounts of c14 in them. But more and more we are seeing just that.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

I'm very consistant jkw.  Personally I don't trust any c14 dating because its too fraught with unkownable variables.

 

We've seen that "hard Water" in caves in Nevada can throw off dating snail shell's in a c14 depleated environment by thousands of years.

 

That shows that c14 intake can be affected by an animals environment and what it eats and what its food source eats too. This is even confirmed by living creatures killed yesterday showing thousands of years old. It also shows that rates of c14 fixation vary in different tissues of the body too.

 

For it to be accurate you would have to know how much c14 was in the bone sample at time of death to begin with and not to mention that c14 production in the biosphere isn't constant to begin with.

 

According to c14 theory 65 million year old dino bones shouldn't have viable tissue on them, Nor should they have any measurable amounts of c14 in them. But more and more we are seeing just that.

But you're not being consistent. You trot out c14 dates on mammoths when you think they support the survival of elephants in the time of the Jaredites, and then at other times you say you don't trust c14 dating at all. Of course, as you know, c14 is not the only means of dating a sample, so most archaeologists use overlapping combinations of dating methods, and c14 may or may not be one of them. As I noted in one of the articles cited by Miller and Roper, c14 is notoriously inaccurate when applied to collagen-based samples. Not surprisingly, Mr. Armitage's samples are claimed to be collagen-based. Of course, the presence of soft tissue in these samples is hotly disputed. So, yes, I feel caution is warranted with disputed samples from a YECer.

I don't know why I bother with these conversations. As I said, you use sketchy sources, and then when those are challenged, you do a quick Google search. Playing dueling Googles can be fun, but it's not very productive.

[cynth]

The problem of course with looking for isolated pieces of evidence for the plausibility or even possibility of a historical Book of Mormon, is that when you only count evidence for (which, as we've seen in this case, sometimes evaporates when you take a closer look), and discount the evidence against, you end up with a distorted picture:

 

http://i.imgur.com/82q2VFL.gifv

 

When you cut out all the shots of this guy trying and failing to hit the target, and leave only the few successful instances, you're left with the distorted picture of a guy who appears to have preternatural aim. 

Makes you wonder how many shots it took?  pretty labor intensive. Any photo tricks going on?

[Gray]

Makes you wonder how many shots it took?  pretty labor intensive. Any photo tricks going on?

 

I think he just kept trying until he made the shot, and then spliced all the successful attempts together. 

[Zakuska]

But you're not being consistent. You trot out c14 dates on mammoths when you think they support the survival of elephants in the time of the Jaredites, and then at other times you say you don't trust c14 dating at all. Of course, as you know, c14 is not the only means of dating a sample, so most archaeologists use overlapping combinations of dating methods, and c14 may or may not be one of them. As I noted in one of the articles cited by Miller and Roper, c14 is notoriously inaccurate when applied to collagen-based samples. Not surprisingly, Mr. Armitage's samples are claimed to be collagen-based. Of course, the presence of soft tissue in these samples is hotly disputed. So, yes, I feel caution is warranted with disputed samples from a YECer.

I don't know why I bother with these conversations. As I said, you use sketchy sources, and then when those are challenged, you do a quick Google search. Playing dueling Googles can be fun, but it's not very productive.

On the contrary, The last line of the Armitage lab Report (sent in by Mr. Miller) declares the sample callogen free.

 

"The Sample has got no Callogen."

http://newgeology.us/UGAMS11752.jpg

Edited October 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

On the contrary, The last line of the Armitage lab Report (sent in by Mr. Miller) declares the sample callogen free.

 

"The Sample has got no Callogen."

http://newgeology.us/UGAMS11752.jpg

I stand corrected. He's still claiming it's a soft-tissue sample, which is, again, quite hotly disputed. If you want to pin your apologetic hopes on a controversial finding by a young-earth creationist that is thus far unconfirmed, be my guest.

[Zakuska]

 If you want to pin your apologetic hopes on a controversial finding by a young-earth creationist that is thus far unconfirmed, be my guest.

 

And yet it wasn't a "young-earth creationist" who sent the bone in for carbon testing in the first place.

 

But regardless... its definately not 65 million years old by a long shot. There should be no C14 left to measure. Yet there is.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

And yet it wasn't a "young-earth creationist" who sent the bone in for carbon testing in the first place.

I know that. There are a lot of factors that go into dating a bone. From what I have read, the controversy is that the bone comes from a known stratum with a known date range. The only anomalous things about that particular bone are the apparently extremely recent date and the claim that it is a soft-tissue sample. There are a lot of alternative explanations of these anomalies other than the claims of the YECer. I'm content to let the scientists sort this out. If you want to accept the anomalous data at face value, that's up to you.

[pogi]

There are a lot of factors that go into dating a bone. 

 

I don't know, it seems like it would be much simpler...they don't talk back, you don't have to buy them dinner, they are fine with whatever you want to do, and when you get bored with them, you throw them to the dogs - no hurt feelings!

[Zakuska]

I get some funny results when I try to google that quote. I would be cautious about assuming that it's genuine. 

You saying there is something wrong with the Primary Sources?

 

Some Archaeologist refused to accept radiocarbon dates. The attitude probably, in early days of the new technique, was summed up by Professor Jo Brew, Director of the Peabody Museum at Harvard, "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text.   If it does not entirley contradict them we put it in the footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it" 146

 

146 David Wilson, The New Archaeology (New York, 1974) p 97  

 

An example of this pernicious practice is seen in the fate of samples from the tomb of pharoah Tutankhamun subjected by the british Museum to the radio-carbon method.  The samples, consisting of fibers of a reed mat and a palm kernel, produced dates of 844 BC and 899 BC respectively. These were broadly in line with the date for Tutankhamun predicted by Velikovsky, but roughly 500 years too recent for textbook chronology.  In spite of assurances given to Velikovsky, the dates were never formally Published.  See Velikovky's Peoples of the Sea (1977) p. xvi

[Gray]

 

You saying there is something wrong with the Primary Sources?

 

 

 

146 David Wilson, The New Archaeology (New York, 1974) p 97  

 

An example of this pernicious practice is seen in the fate of samples from the tomb of pharoah Tutankhamun subjected by the british Museum to the radio-carbon method.  The samples, consisting of fibers of a reed mat and a palm kernel, produced dates of 844 BC and 899 BC respectively. These were broadly in line with the date for Tutankhamun predicted by Velikovsky, but roughly 500 years too recent for textbook chronology.  In spite of assurances given to Velikovsky, the dates were never formally Published.  See Velikovky's Peoples of the Sea (1977) p. xvi

 

 

All I get when I try to google the quote are creationist websites, with variations on that quote. In other words, I only find it on partisan home-brewed sites, and that makes me suspicious. Have you verified that the source exists and the quote appears in that source? 

[Zakuska]

All I get when I try to google the quote are creationist websites, with variations on that quote. In other words, I only find it on partisan home-brewed sites, and that makes me suspicious. Have you verified that the source exists and the quote appears in that source? 

Yes the source exists.

 

Anyone near BYU and can check the Library?

http://www.worldcat.org/title/new-archaeology/oclc/3866468?referer=di&ht=edition

 

I also see it referenced in other books not authored by Creationists too.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=iosAYLJKf6cC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=The+New+Archaeology+(New+York,+1974)+David+Wilson&source=bl&ots=25Q6ciZHTb&sig=T61loHGtzn-bIQjrLdgDiKQeT7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI8rX-oPKuyAIVCjOICh06LAG-#v=onepage&q=The%20New%20Archaeology%20(New%20York%2C%201974)%20David%20Wilson&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=V31NBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT98&lpg=PT98&dq=The+New+Archaeology+(New+York,+1974)+David+Wilson&source=bl&ots=-A83zTgTtr&sig=Kka7GuGxEFlpo95g6diFKACyL9E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwA2oVChMI8rX-oPKuyAIVCjOICh06LAG-#v=onepage&q=The%20New%20Archaeology%20(New%20York%2C%201974)%20David%20Wilson&f=false

Edited October 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

All I get when I try to google the quote are creationist websites, with variations on that quote. In other words, I only find it on partisan home-brewed sites, and that makes me suspicious. Have you verified that the source exists and the quote appears in that source?

Same here. I can't find a primary source for that statement. Keep in mind that quote is almost as old as I am. It's safe to say fossil dating technology has changed in 45 years.

[Zakuska]

See my last post

 

Same here. I can't find a primary source for that statement. Keep in mind that quote is almost as old as I am. It's safe to say fossil dating technology has changed in 45 years.

See my last post above yours.  BYU has the book.

[jkwilliams]

See my last post

 

See my last post above yours.  BYU has the book.

I just find it interesting that all these quotes about c14 being unreliable are over 30 years old.

[Zakuska]

I just find it interesting that all these quotes about c14 being unreliable are over 30 years old.

And yet you refuse to accept a C14 dating of a 33,500 year old triceratops Horn obtained just last year using all the latest and greatest techniques in the field to ensure a good date and prevent contamination. This is rather telling.

 

C14 dating is reliable or its not.  You can't have it both ways. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Zakuska