(Reuters) - Bulgaria's claim to have unearthed six bones belonging to John the Baptist has received a boost from scientists who have concluded after dating them and analyzing their genetic code that they could indeed be relics of the man who baptized Jesus. The remains, which include a molar and a piece of cranium, were found in July 2010 in a marble sarcophagus in the ruins of a medieval church on the island of Sveti Ivan, or Saint John, off Bulgaria's Black Sea coast near the resort of Sozopol. They are on display in a church in Sozopol where thousands of worshippers have flocked to view them, untroubled by questions about their authenticity. "When I first heard this story in 2010 I thought it was a bit of a joke, to be honest," said Tom Higham of the University of Oxford's Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, one of the world's top laboratories for carbon dating of archaeological material. Higham's team dated a knuckle-bone to the first century AD, when John the Baptist would have lived, while geneticist colleagues from the University of Copenhagen established the full DNA code of three of the bones. The genetic analysis showed that the bones were from the same person, a man who most probably came from the Middle East. Higham, who is an atheist, said that it was obviously impossible to say with any certainty that the remains belonged to John the Baptist. But it could not be ruled out. "I'm much less skeptical than I was at the beginning. I think there's possibly more to it. But I'd like to find out more," he told Reuters on Friday. 12 HANDS AND SIX HEADS Relics of saints or fragments of the True Cross on which Jesus was crucified, according to Christian tradition, have been a powerful draw for pilgrims and tourists for centuries. Thousands of such relics can be found in churches across Europe. But skeptics have always dismissed these items as a scam to lure the credulous, and some joke that if all the bones said to have belonged to John the Baptist were authentic the Biblical figure would have had 12 hands and six heads. Higham plans to apply for funding to analyze purported John the Baptist relics from other places to see if any of them came from the same individual whose remains were found on Sveti Ivan. "I look at this as a bit of fun. I'm not a hard core ecclesiastical researcher. I actually study Neanderthals and stuff like that, older stuff," said Higham. "But I'm really interested in applying radio carbon dating more widely to find out information about the past." John the Baptist, who is revered in Christianity and Islam, announced the coming of Jesus and baptized him in the River Jordan. The Gospels say King Herod had him beheaded. Oxford archaeologist Georges Kazan, who wrote his doctoral thesis on the movement of relics in the 5th and 6th centuries, said that there was historical evidence to support the claim that the Sveti Ivan remains could be authentic. The evidence includes a small box made from volcanic tuff, or consolidated ash, which was found next to the bones and is inscribed with John's name and his feast day in Ancient Greek. The tuff came from Cappadocia, in modern Turkey, which was one of the routes used to take purported relics from the Holy Land to Constantinople, now Istanbul, where in the 5th and 6th centuries Eastern Roman Emperors were keen to acquire them. The emperors, who were copied by pious aristocrats, wanted relics for devotional purposes or to be buried with them. "They were often bestowed as a sign of favor. The monastery of Sveti Ivan may well have received a portion of relics as a gift from a patron, a member of Constantinople's elite," said Kazan, adding that the island was an easy distance from the Byzantine capital on a major Black Sea trading route. (Additional reporting by Tsvetelia Tsolova in Sofia; Editing by Jon Hemming)
You know how Creationists always whine about radiometric dating being inaccurate and all that nonsense? I bet they will be silent here. It's one thing to say to have found bones from a 2000 year old middle eastern man. It's another stretch to claim that they were from a guy who had ties to Jesus.
C14 dating is one method almost anyone would agree on for one reason, it's testable. We can date things we know the age of with C14 and they come up as accurate dates up to around ~10,000 years. I'm sure the reason why many have trouble accepting the other methods is because they're discussing millions and billions of years which is just beyond the ability to test and verify, and when dating things we actually know the dates of they give wildly inaccurate dates. OT- It's an interesting article but I'd say it'd be pretty tough to determine whether those were actually that mans bones or not. Bones don't tell much of a story other than something was once alive and is now dead. lol
Creationists don't accept carbon dating, at least from what I've seen. Other methods of radiometric dating follow the exact same laws of physics as carbon dating. If you accept one, then you have to accept them all in order to be consistent.
[quote name='"dishin reg"'] C14 dating is one method almost anyone would agree on for one reason, it's testable. We can date things we know the age of with C14 and they come up as accurate dates up to around ~10,000 years. I'm sure the reason why many have trouble accepting the other methods is because they're discussing millions and billions of years which is just beyond the ability to test and verify, and when dating things we actually know the dates of they give wildly inaccurate dates. OT- It's an interesting article but I'd say it'd be pretty tough to determine whether those were actually that mans bones or not. Bones don't tell much of a story other than something was once alive and is now dead. lol[/quote] LOL. Yup he calked it. Suddenly its OK.to carbon date for "insert reason here"
words that indicate they have no real evidence... could may might possibly btw: I found a bone next to the trash...looks like a finger bone (some say it could be a chicken leg bone, but I ignore those people), must be John's...I'm gonna cash in on this.
All they know is that its from someone of that age. Are they not considering that millions of people lived at that time?
I'm OK with C14 dating because... it's observed to be verifiable.. Look through all my posts and never do I disagree with C14 dating, why? Because we can verify it with things we know the ages of. C14 can be verified. Other radiometric dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate when dating things we know the age of, therefore I do not trust it. Why would you trust a dating method that is shown to be wildly inaccurate? Nothing to do with beliefs, it's all to do with being able to be observed and verified.
Other dating methods can be verified and all radiometric dating methods use the exact same physics. dA/dt = kA. Radioactive decay equation. This is something that's incredibly reliable and well verified.
[quote name='"dishin reg"'] I'm OK with C14 dating because... it's observed to be verifiable.. Look through all my posts and never do I disagree with C14 dating, why? Because we can verify it with things we know the ages of. C14 can be verified. Other radiometric dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate when dating things we know the age of, therefore I do not trust it. Why would you trust a dating method that is shown to be wildly inaccurate? Nothing to do with beliefs, it's all to do with being able to be observed and verified.[/quote] LOL. Don't tell me. Your going to quote that volcano BS again?
So, like, will people just assume now that these bones are definitely those of John the Baptist? Evidence of identity is pretty important. It would be nice if they found some neck bones, perhaps they could identify the injury from the beheading. That would bolster the idea. It's pretty funny how pretty much every post after the op went straight to carbon dating.
Explain how it's bs other than just saying it is...lol All you did to disclaim it was say it was a fallacy without even stating which one lmao. Can you show me an article or anything showing the confirmation of dating methods other than C14? Well you have no problem claiming half a jaw bone found buried in the dirt in some remote area of Africa is the remains of one of your long lost cousins, but only become skeptical when it comes to some kind of relation to Christianity? lol
[quote name='"dishin reg"'] Explain how it's bs other than just saying it is...lol All you did to disclaim it was say it was a fallacy without even stating which one lmao. Can you show me an article or anything showing the confirmation of dating methods other than C14? Well you have no problem claiming half a jaw bone found buried in the dirt in some remote area of Africa is the remains of one of your long lost cousins, but only become skeptical when it comes to some kind of relation to Christianity? lol[/quote] Oh idk maybe cause the scientist who did the research was incompetent? Of coarse the "newly" formed rocks would show they had "old" radio isotopes because when "old" rocks in the core of the earth get melted they still retain the same composition. Please explain why you think radio dating is inaccurate?
So how are you so sure then other examples of dating rocks aren't just giving the ages of the 'old' rock and isn't actually relatively 'new'? Please explain what reasons you have to suspect radio dating is accurate? The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, I have yet to see anything that can verify radiometric dating, therefore have no reason to believe in it's validity.
CD001: Geochronometry and closed systems CD002: Geochronology and initial conditions CD010: Radiometric Dating CD011: Carbon dating. CD013: K-Ar dating of modern rocks. CD012: U-Th dating of modern rocks
[quote name='"dishin reg"'] So how are you so sure then other examples of dating rocks aren't just giving the ages of the 'old' rock and isn't actually relatively 'new'? Please explain what reasons you have to suspect radio dating is accurate? The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, I have yet to see anything that can verify radiometric dating, therefore have no reason to believe in it's validity.[/quote] LOL. Burden of proof is on me? Hello. You learn this stuff in school. Its all been proven in labs and you can do the experaments in school lab classes. I'm not going.to like wikepedia and say look I'm right. Ill link this awsome video instead [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKL_EpnSp8&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]
Posting some lame video doesn't make me forget you failed to answer a question- So how are you so sure then other examples of dating rocks aren't just giving the ages of the 'old' rock and isn't actually relatively 'new'? We find alot of places that date billions of years old on the top of the Earth's crust, how exactly are you so sure the results from these tests aren't actually giving the dates of the 'old rock?' Explain how you're going to verify an age of million years +?
[quote name='"dishin reg"'] Posting some lame video doesn't make me forget you failed to answer a question- So how are you so sure then other examples of dating rocks aren't just giving the ages of the 'old' rock and isn't actually relatively 'new'? We find alot of places that date billions of years old on the top of the Earth's crust, how exactly are you so sure the results from these tests aren't actually giving the dates of the 'old rock?' Explain how you're going to verify an age of million years +?[/quote] I can't answer.your question in a silly thread. We scientists read thousands of pages of text books and spend hundreds of hours in labs getting hands on experience. Your defibatly not qualified to dispute the work of many many people much much smarter then you. That's why I posted that "lame video" Science is a cutthroat field and everyone wants to be right. In the scientific community if something is taken as "fact" its because not only is the evidence overwhelmingly convincing but alternate theories are proven.wrong. Go get your PhD in geology then come back and tell us why geology is bunk science
These are just a few of the ways that we can date a rock accurately. Not just by one test, but by many. Some only work well in some instances, but we can cross-reference dating methods to such a degree now that we can date rock with incredible accuracy. "... Modern dating methods Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth. In the century since then the techniques have been greatly improved and expanded.[14] Dating can now be performed on samples as small as a nanogram using a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams. Uranium-lead dating method Main article: uranium-lead dating A concordia diagram as used in uranium-lead dating, with data from the Pfunze Belt, Zimbabwe.[16] All the samples show loss of lead isotopes, but the intercept of the errorchron (straight line through the sample points) and the concordia (curve) shows the correct age of the rock.[11] The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[12][17] An error margin of 2–5 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[18] Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite.[19] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. It has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[20] One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample. Samarium-neodymium dating method Main article: Samarium-neodymium dating This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.[21] Potassium-argon dating method Main article: Potassium-argon dating This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125C (mica) to 450C (hornblende). Rubidium-strontium dating method Main article: Rubidium-strontium dating This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample. Uranium-thorium dating method Main article: uranium-thorium dating A relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years. While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years. MelT