Saturday, December 14, 2013

Ancient Mars Lake Could Have Supported Life, or Could It?

The Curiosity rover team made an announcement that they have discovered evidence of past fresh waster in  Gale Crater. Now This data is not new because it has been available months and they seem to be ignoring an aspect of the data that goes against habitability at least long-term habitability.
Yes the clay found in the area indicates fresh water disposition but there is also enough the sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide indicated a past environment of about 3% sulfuric acid and a Ph of around 0.5. It seems that fresh water originally erupted from underground becoming acidic as a result of volcanic activity. The makes is a perfect fit to the Catastrophic Model of Martian geology.
Now there is no evidence of actual life and no evidence of  organic compounds. They only found compounds that life could use if present. This suggests an over eagerness eager to find life on Mars such that any hint a possible habitable puddle of water gets them excited.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Human Chromosome 2 Fusion Theory Shown Wrong


One of the latest big arguments for the claim man evolved from a common ancestor with apes is that the human chromosome 2 is a result of an end to end fusion from two chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b. For the record they were given these labels after the theory wad proposed as a way of giving support for the fusion theory. This theory was proposed as a way to explain the fact that apes have 48 humans 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes all have 24 pairs. While this theory rests on rather weak evidence to begin with in that if the DNA sequences were originally centromere, and telomere sites they would have to be more highly degraded that predictive for possible tine span.


One major problem with this claim is the fact that such a mutation would only occur in one individual at time and if it occurred it would probably render the person infertile with rest of his species and if he were lucky to find a mate with the same fused chromosome (highly improbable) then their offspring would have trouble finding compatible mates, making its survival let alone dominance highly improbable.


To make matters worst for the theory is that there are no identified cases telomere-to-telomere fusion in mammals since every chromosome fusions documented in living mammals involves satellite DNA and telomeres have end caps called the shelterin protein complex that prevent  telomere-to-telomere fusion.


It gets even worse for the chromosome fusion do the lack of  DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimps in the area around the alleged   human chromosome 2 fusion site, including an unexplained lack of chimp DNA in the area. The alleged fusion site is surrounded by many functional genes and aleged pseudogenes not found in the ends of the ends of chimpanzee chromosomes 2A or 2B.


The final neal in the chromosome 2 fusion coffin is the fact that the alleged fusion site is actually location inside the DDX11L2 gene.  This gene has three primary exons transcribed in the direction of telomere to centromere. It serves several regulatory functions making it a highly expressed and highly complicated gene and one not found in apes.


If the human chromosome 2  were indeed a result of an end to end fusion from two chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b were would expect to find the fusion site in fairly good shape and surrounded by DNA sequences highly similar between humans and chimps but we do not. We also find a unique highly functional gene going right across the alleged fusion site. Thus this so called evidence for a human-chimpanzee common ancestor and human evolution can be considered falsified, that is has been shown to be wrong.







------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk


Saturday, October 5, 2013

Mars Update


Two discoveries about this week have provided further support for the  Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology. This helps show just how well the theory describes Martian. The Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology speaks of a planet wide Martian geological Catastrophe a few thousand years ago from about the the the Global Flood described in the Bible as happening on Earth.

The Mars rover Curiosity discovered that the regolith soil in Gale Crater contains about 2% water which would be consistent with the flooding event described by Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology for the crater. It all so contains higher percentages of chemicals that are poisonous or even potentially explosive such that it would not be safe to drink without considerable refinements, but the presence of the the water is consistent with a flooding evening within the last few thousand years.


Now while supervolcanoes were not original part of the  Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology, the possibility of them they on Mars is consistent with it. The possibility has been suggested by the similarity between some Martian, and features on Earth thought to be supervolcanoes . While Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology was based on known large Martian volcanoes, the addition of supervolcanoes only adds to and inproves the model by have more sources of volcanic activity.



------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk


Saturday, September 21, 2013

Scientists claim to find life coming to Earth from space

A report from scientists at the University of Sheffield clams the discovery of microscopic life in the process coming to Earth from space. The "biological particles" that form the bases of this report were found in the stratosphere by a balloon. The reason why they concluded the particles come from space is that they are too big to have drifted up to such an altitude in the absence of volcanic activity.
One flaw in their conclusion is that there could be another mechanism by which these particles could have gotten that high. Another is that it is not even certain that they are biological in origin, scientists have been fooled before. However for the sake of argument lets assume that these particles are indeed life  coming to Earth from space. There is a high probability that they are simply returning having been ejected in the past. In fact from a creation science perspective it is likely that microbes got ejected into space from the Earth during Noah's Flood. 
------ Charles Creager Jr.

Life on Mars Refuted by the Rover Curiosity

Since landing on Mars the rover Curiosity has been test levels of methane in the Martian atmosphere looking for evidence of life. Evidence from Martian orbit had suggesting the presence of methane but Curiosity can not find it. This suggest that the previous evidence for methane was ether in error or the it was volcanic in origin and thus had been ejected into the upper Martian atmosphere. Methane is produced by microorganisms but if it were being produced by Martian microorganisms and Curiosity should have detect it and it has not, These results indicate that if methane is present at all that it is the upper Martian atmosphere making it more compatible with a volcanic origin than a biological one.
From a creation science perspective finding microorganisms on Mars would not be a problem, not only is native Martian microorganisms  not a problem for Biblical creation but there are any number of ways that they could have migrated from Earth to Mars, including Earth meteorites and our own space probes. The main reason for wanting to find life on Mars is too support the idea of abiogenesis which can be shown to be a thermodynamic impossibility. The claim is often made that finding life on Mars would prove abiogenesis not only possible but likely, however the odds would be far greater that life from earth got to Mars. In fact even giving abiogenesis unreasonably generous odds of actually occurring indicates that we should be alone in the universe.
The results of evidence methane in the Martian atmosphere from orbit and not one the surface would be constant with recent volcanic activity on Mars which is a main point of Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology as such this result was actually predicted by the model. However it all but totally falsifies the Martian microorganism model.
------ Charles Creager Jr.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

The Information Universe Predicts Three New Particles

Efforts to develop the Information Universe model with a full description of particle physics have produced a prediction of there New Particles. In addition these particles fit the qualifications of dark matter. The process begins with the particles of the Standard Model of Particle Physic.
The standard model consists of 17 established particles and their antiparticles. In developing the Information Universe model for Particle Physics it was necessary to start known particles and find patterns that would aid the process. The first of these patterns is that there are six distinct mass groupings including neutrinos and massless particles like photons and gluons. Putting neutrinos and massless particles aside as special cases be dealt with separately leaves four mass groupings consisting of a total of 12 particles and their anti-particles. A close examination of the first and third groups suggest missing particles do to significant jumps in mass between particles. These gaps include the number of wave lengths of these particles bouncing back and forth within the Higgs field needed to satisfy quantum mechanics. It needs to be noted that the jump form 3 to 5 wave lengths between the Higgs and Top Quark do not suggest a additional particle since no significant mass gap exists.
The three new predicted particles are named for the  first, second and eleventh letters of the Hebrew alphabet. They are Alef (א), Bet (ב), and Kaf (כ) respectively and they were chosen for ease of writing and to avoid of confusion with Greek letters when hand written. Collectively they from a third group of Fermions dubbed Mosons.
The third pattern is in fundamental particle interactions. The pattern of interactions between these particle hints at a missing piece to the puzzle. The missing piece shows particles that interact with the nuclear forces. (W, Z, q)  This exactly where the Mosons fit into the picture. Mosons do not interact with photons and are thus could not be visible in light thus they are uncharged particles, whose  anti-particle simply has an opposite spin. They would however interact by way of gravity and as well as the strong and weak nuclear forces. This makes these Mosons  a good candidate for dark matter since they would form composite particles that would only be detectable by hitting atomic nuclei.
Recently events that are considered  possible dark mater hits in  underground detectors are consistent with these results. One hit suggested a dark mater particle of 8.6 GeV and the other one of 50 GeV. The would correspond to particles of  9.25   and 53.7 Atomic mass units. This makes the smaller one a little larger mass as a Beryllium-9 atom and larger one is a little lighter than Chromium-53. Since alefons would easily form atomic nuclei size particles because they lack an electric charge to keep them apart. This provides a testable prediction for the overall model.
This development is a major step forward in the Information Universe model as it provides a starting point for developing a specific digital model of particle physics.
------ Charles Creager Jr.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Ball State University formally bans Intelligent Design

If you need more proof the main goal of Evolution theory is to explain our existence with out God, well here is some.  Ball State University formally banned the discussion of Intelligent Design from its science class rooms. While the usefulness of Restricted Intelligent Design to supporting Biblical Creation is limited with General Intelligent Design a better approach, the point of this ban is clearly a prohibition against any discussion of the possibility that there is intelligence behind the Universe.


This stands as solid evidence that the purpose of not only Darwinian Evolution but the entire Big Bang to Man Evolutionary theory of origins is explain our existence without any. This type of prohibition shows that God is thrown out of consideration as a starting assumption. If I set out to build a model of how the pyramids on Egypt could have come about with out the Egyptians and in fact by totally natural causes, I would produce a story that would sound like they never existed. This is the case with the Evolutionary theory of origins, it starts out with the atheistic assumption that God does not exist and thus they have produced an atheistic mythology of origins that seem to show that God is not needed.


The point is that Darwinian Evolution and the entire Big Bang to Man Evolutionary theory of origins are not but atheistic mythology being preached in guise of science, and the actions such as banning and discussion of Intelligent Design shows that this is indeed the case. If the goal were truly a pursuit of the truth then discussions not only Intelligent Design but Biblical Creation as well should be welcomed but instead they are banned.



------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk



Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Evolution a Faith Based Belief System


The knee jerk reaction of any Evolutionist reading this will be, “Of course not, Evolution is science not religion.” However this claim presupposes that a belief in General Evolution theory is not at its heart religious in nature and it is a presupposition that is questionable given the religious like devotion of many of its adherents. This claim also limits the definition of faith in a manner deliberately intended to exclude evolution by definition. Before continuing let we need to define our terms so as to eliminate ambiguity.


Evolution refers to the evolutionary view of origins and not just decent with modification and natural selection. Basically the evolutionary view of origins the idea that we came into existence by totally naturalistic means as opposed to being created directly by God. This view includes the idea of common decent and specifically that man evolved from a common ancestor with apes. It can also include the entire Big Bang to man view of origins.  The word “Evolution” is being used to refer to the entire evolutionary view of origins so as to prevent needless wordiness.

Evolutionist refers to anyone who believes in Evolution.


Faith can be most objectively defined as a belief in something without direct evidence.


Now there are two types of faith: rational and irrational.


A ration faith is one founded on evidence as seen from the perspective of the person holding the faith. You have faith that a chair will hold your weight because it has done so in the past. However you have no proof that no one has tampered with that chair making it incapable of holding your weight, so sitting in a chair is by definition an act of faith be it a rational one.

An irrational faith is one contrary to evidence as seen from the perspective of the person holding the faith. You can have faith that a chair will hold your weight despite the fact that you can see that someone has tampered with the chair, so sitting in such a chair is by definition an act of faith and an irrational one at that.


The point is that a rational faith while lacking direct evidence is based on trust in the source that faith is based on. For example you can have faith that what a person is telling you is true without evidence because you have past evidence that what they tell you is true. In this case your faith is in the person giving you the information.


The reason for mentioning this is that in many cases where faith is contrasted to science, all faith is made to look irrational when it is not. The question here is not faith vs. science but weather or not a belief in Evolution is ultimately based on faith and no effort will be made to determine if that faith is rational or not.


So give our definition of faith is Evolution based on the believing in things for which there is direct evidence. 


The Evidence


The knee jerk reaction of any Evolutionist at this point will say. “See we have empirical evidence so Evolution is not faith based.” Aside from the fact that Creationists also have empirical evidence in support of Biblical Creation, the question is how do you know there is empirical evidence in support of Evolution? 

Before you start on the unusual Evolutionist rant that there is overwhelming evidence for Evolution, honestly ask yourself how do know there is? Have you seen it all? Have you even seen a significant fraction of it? Even if have seen some it have ever been able to study it personally? Have you ever seen a single important fossil in the ground where it was found?

The simple fact is that most people have never seen any of the evidence claimed as support for Evolution including scientists. Even those that have examined actual fossils and other evidence have only personally looked at only a small fraction of what is claimed even if the fraction is considered an important find.

Even if you have seen some photographs, reproductions or even actual evidence, did you ever see it where and how was found? If not how do you know it’s not a fake. Hoaxes have occurred from time to time and in some cases the hoax was not discovered for decades, and maybe not at all. How do you know a picture you see is not CGI or some other form of photographic fakery?

Have you ever even read any of the original papers on any major or minor discoveries? For example the age of the Earth is often sighted as 4.5 billion years, but few people have ever read the original paper Age of Meteorites and the Earth by Claire Patterson 1956 on which that figure is based. If you did you would see the 4.5 billion year figure is only valid if the Earth formed by accretion into an initial molten state and  that if it was formed any other way the 4.5 billion year figure is at best a maximum possible age. The fact is that most people, even geologists have never read this paper and so they do not know this detail but they spout they 4.5 billion year figure as absolute fact anyhow.

So if no one has seen all of the evidence claimed for Evolution, and most people have not seen so much a fragment of bone then what direct evidence do we have that there is any real evidence for Evolution? The answer is that there is no direct evidence for any of  it and thus by the above definition accepting the claim that there is evidence for Evolution is an act of faith in those claiming that there is evidence for Evolution.



Having not actually seen any of the evidence claimed for evolution the reason most people think that there is overwhelming evidence for Evolution is the way it is presented. These presentations are in museums, schools, TV programs, and on the internet. However such presentations are also one sided. Not only are alternative interpretations usually ignored, but so are any weaknesses in the interpretations presented.

So when you watch such a presentation about any aspect of Evolution be it biological, chemical, geological, or cosmological there is no direct evidence that what you are being told if factual even from the perspective of those making the presentation. There is also no direct evidence that the material is being presented without bias or deception. 

As a result based on the definition we given above, accepting the content of Evolutionary presentations is an act of faith in the writers, producers, and presenters of the material in the presentation.


In many ways the validity of any evidence presented in support of Evolution comes down to the honesty, and unbiasness of the people making the discoveries, and presenting the material to people. So unless you personally know all or at least most of these people involved you have no evidence at all that they are honest, and unbiased. Even if you know them all unless you have personally followed every step of the process you have no direct evidence of the validity of any evidence presented in support of Evolution.

As a result based on the definition we given above, accepting the content of Evolution requires faith in the people if involved in the research and presentation of evidence presented in support of Evolution  .


Yes contrary to how many evolutionary scientists sound, Evolution has many underlying assumptions. An assumption is something taken for granted that is another way of saying that it is something believed without direct evidence. This means that by definition believing assumption is an act of faith. This means that faith does in deed underlay Evolution.

Let’s look at some of the assumptions remember I am using Evolution to refer to the entire evolutionary view of origins for purposes of convenience, as such it refers to more than biological evolution. A complete list would be quite long so let’s look at seven  big ones.


The Big Bang.

The biggest assumption about the Big Bang is that it actually happened. This assumption is made despite the fact that there is no evidence for it that is not easily explained or even predicted by other cosmologies.

 The other big assumption about the Big Bang is that it is even possible. It is purely an assumption that nothing can spontaneously exploded. While the appearance and disappearance of virtual quantum particles is presented as evidence that this can happen it, these virtual quantum particles do not appearance out of nothing, but they come from and return to the zero point energy of the universe.


Dark Energy

Dark Energy is based on the assumption of the reality of the Big Ban. In fact it was invented solely for the purpose of saving the Big bang from the reality of observation that indicates an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is now assumed to be real and to be the most abundant substance in the universe despite the fact that other cosmologies exist that explains the data without dark energy.


Planet Formation.

Planet Formation is assumed to occur despite no direct observation of the process and the fact that it does not predict any of the planetary arrangements of extra solar planetary systems. In fact they were total surprise to Evolutionary astronomers.

Like the Big Bang new add-on theories had to be developed to save the theory from the reality of extra solar planetary systems. These theories allow a planet found any place in a planetary system to be moved from where it would theoretically form. The point is  that the theory planets  forming from accretion is assumed to be true and has simply had migration  theories added to save the assumed accretion theory from reality.



Abiogenesis is one of the biggest Evolutionary assumptions there is because there not only is there no evidence that it is possible, but the thermodynamics indicates that it is impossible. Yes some of the building blocks of life have been shown to be produced by chemical process but that is far shore of life. That is like saying that demonstrating that bricks can form by some type natural process that you could get an entire house by some type natural process.   

The simple fact is that there is that the only evidence for abiogenesis is the assumption that it had to have occurred because the only alternative has already been rejected by another assumption. The makes a belief in  abiogenesis a 100% act of faith.


Mutations can result in increases in useful genetic information.

Another assumption is that mutations can result in increases in useful genetic information. While mutation can result in new traits they always represent a loss in the total amount of usable information in the organism. In fact it is the accumulation of mutations in the individual the leads declining health and ultimately death as one ages.

The usual response is that natural selection causes the increase in useful genetic information. However natural selection is just a filter and filtering out the worst mistakes won’t increase the amount of useful genetic information. It’s like taking pure water and dumping rat poison into it. No matter how much you filter that water you will not get milk.

The simple fact is that there is no evidence that mutations can result in increases in useful genetic information, and thus accepting that it happens is nothing short of an act of faith.


Absolute Naturalism

Absolute Naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon can be explained in term of the laws of nature. While starting an investigation of a given phenomenon with the assumption that it can be explained in term of the laws of nature makes sense holding to that assumption as absolute principle goes beyond reason, because there is no proof that all phenomenon can be explained in term of the laws of nature. In fact it is impossible to prove that all phenomenon can be explained in term of the laws of nature because there could always be an unknown exception.

Furthermore it is not really possible to explain all known phenomenon in term of the laws of nature. While it is possible to force a totally naturalistic explanation on all phenomenon, in many cases it involves ignoring facts or assuming that the phenomenon is some form of mental delusion. 


As a result of the fact that absolute naturalism cannot be proven and that there are reasons to question this assumption believing absolute naturalism is by definition an act of faith.

God does not exist


The ultimate assumption of Evolution is that God does not exist making it an intently atheistic theory. Yes you can believe in God and Evolution as well but it is not a logically consistent position.  The simple fact is that the main goal of the Evolutionary Big Bang to man view of origins is to explain our existence apart from God.


If you need proof that this is the case just look at some the reactions to Intelligent Design. If the main goal of Evolution was not to explain our existence apart from God, Intelligent Design would not be attracted the way it has even if the theory were bad. There would not have been the law suits to keep Intelligent Design out of public school curriculum.


The point is that this is an assumption and not based any evidence. Logically you can’t disprove the existence of God since it is impossible prove a universal negative. The most one could potentially do is show that God is not needed to explain the world around us. The result is that the Evolutionary assumption that God does not exist is an assumption made without evidence and thus believing this assumption is act faith.


The simple fact is that believing in the Big Bang to man evolutionary view of origins requires a lot more faith than most people tend to think. There is a lot about this view that cannot be supported by direct evidence and therefore must be accepted on faith. Faith that the evidence claimed is there and accurately interpreted, faith way evidence is presented, faith in the people and faith that all of the assumptions are right.


As result it has to be concluded that the Big Bang to man evolutionary view of origins has to be considered a faith based belief system as much and possibly more than any religion.






------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk


Thursday, July 4, 2013


I just posted several articles and a video on gravity.


One of the results that General Relativity shows about gravity is that in a bounded expanding universe the resulting gravitational field makes it possible to get light from the edge of the universe to Earth within the 6000 year Biblical time frame in model were the universe is surrounded by a sphere of water the Bible indicates.


Psalm 148:1-6 (KJB)

1  Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.

2  Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

3  Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

4  Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

5  Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

6  He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.


 I am currently in the process of building on Dr. Russ Humphreys work with a possible explanation of the evidence interpreted as the expansion of the universe accelerating. While these articles do not deal with this they do help lay the ground work for it.



------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk


Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Opportunity Discovers Evidence of Past Fresh Water on Mars


Opportunity has proven itself to be the energizer rabbit of rovers. Having been on Mars for nearly 10 years it just keeps going and going. Data from Opportunity was instrumental in the development of the Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology. One aspect of this model is that the Meridiani Planum region of Mars was flooded by fresh water; most likely an eruption from underground; that would have become highly acidic as the result of heavy volcanic activity.


Recently Opportunity found evidence of clay in a rock called Esperance. Because clay forms in PH neutral is evidence that a neutral fresh water environment preceded the acidic environment of  Meridiani Planum as predicted by the Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology. This is further confirmation of this young Mars (young Earth as well) model of Martian geology.



------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk


Saturday, May 11, 2013

Mount Sharp May be formed by Wind Deposites


A recent paper indicates that most of the material that makes up Mount Sharp was deposited wind. Mount Sharp is the 3.4-mile-high mountain in Gale Crater near where the Curiosity rover landed.  This would include the two fan like structures. It now seems that Mount Sharp may have been deposited wind and subsequently eroded by water and thus it is consistent Gale Crater being subsequently flooded by an eruption of under ground water rather than being formed by the impact as previously theorized here even that would mean that they were air deposited rater than water deposited as JPL thought.


The possibility that Mount Sharp was deposited wind is fully consistent with the Catastrophic theory of Martian  Geology since the massive volcanic activity and its triggering impact bombardment would have filled there Martian atmosphere with dust greatly increasing its pressure and causing lots wind so there are probably lots of wind driven sediments all over mars that were quickly deposited in the case of Gale Crater this included a subsequent eruption of underground water that eroded Mount Sharp resulting in what we see to day.



------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk


Friday, May 10, 2013

Lunar Water Came Earth


The ratio of isotopes of the various elements varies from planet to planet. Recently an isotopic analysis of water found in rocks brought back from by astronauts on the Apollo 15 and 17 missions shows that water has the same deuterium- hydrogen ratios as is found on Earth and quite different. Deuterium is  a heavy isotope hydrogen. This suggests that the water originate on Earth. However some of these rocks are would probably have resulted from magma from the Moons interior. This indicated that the water what resent when the Moon formed.


This result is fully consistent with Young Earth Creation model of the origin of planetary magnetic field developed by Dr, Russell Humphreys. Based on the reference to the deep on in Genesis 1:2 he concluded the the Earth had started out as a ball of water. The water was later used by God to start the Earth's Magnetic field.


Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of
God moved upon the face of the waters.


Based on Genesis 1:6  and Psalm 148:4  he further proposed that when the water was divided the water above was pushed out in to space some of it being used to form the planets ant the Moon on day four of creation.


Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.


Psalm 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters
that be above the heavens.


Being so close to the Earth it would be expected that he Moon's deuterium- hydrogen ratios would match those of the Earth. Thus we have here dramatic evidence in support of Humphreys' Young Earth model of planetary fields. A theory which has already had amazing success predicting planetary magnetic fields around the solar system including the observed decrease in Mercury's magnetic field.






------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk


Thursday, April 25, 2013

Re: [CreationTalk] New Study Shows the Shroud of Turin Is Not a Medieval Forg...

Thanks for your insightful information regard to the "Shroud of Turin." I appreciate that.


In the meantime -- do join the conversation on facebook at SWJ Enterprises regard to the following!


To deny the existence of God is tantamount to denying the existence of the ground on which you stand: True or False? Join the conversation.


Thank you,


Simeon Johnson

In a message dated 4/25/2013 7:37:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

The Shroud of Turin is a rectangular linen cloth 14.3ft long by 3.7 ft wide and woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill. What makes it unique is the faint, brownish front and back image of a naked man. It is believed by many to be the the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. If so it would be a artifact of the most important miraculous event described in the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, thus if it is authentic it would be the most important artifact of human history.

The current dispute over it age begins with the carbon 14 dating done a small section on the shroud in 1988 that dated it to 1260 - 1390 AD. However there have been questions raised about the accuracy of this date on several grounds. The first was the fact the all four samples were taken from the same portion of the cloth. This is a problem because it violated standard procedure for such dating which normally requires taking sample from different locations to avoid one area of contamination affecting the results. To make maters worst the section used was near a repair making contamination a real possibility. Including the fact that the shroud has been handled and even kissed over the centuries only males maters worst for the carbon 14 dating.

Using infra-red light, spectroscopy and multiparametric mechanical tests on fibers taken from the shroud during the 1988 study Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua and other scientists discovered that the fibers were compatible with those from the time of the death, burial and resurrection Jesus Christ in about 30 AD. Combining the results from different tests tests, produces a date of 220 B.C.- 280 AD. The conclusion is the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval forgery but is from a time range consistent with it be authentic

The question that needs to be answered in determining if the Shroud of Turin is authentic is to determine whether or not it is consistent with Biblical account. To do so requires checking all four gospels to see what they say.

Matthew 27:59 (KJB) And when Joseph had taken the body,

he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

Mark 15:46 (KJB) And he bought fine linen, and took him

down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a

sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone

unto the door of the sepulchre.

Luke 23:53 (KJB) And he took it down, and wrapped it in

linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone,

wherein never man before was laid.

Luke 24:12 (KJB) Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre;

and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves,

and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

John 19:40 (KJB) Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in

linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

John 20:5-7 (KJB)

5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying;
yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre,

and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen
clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Matthew refers to Jesus' body be rapped in a linen cloth while Luke and John refer to linen clothes, with Mark simply referring to linen. John also refers to "the napkin, that was about his head." John's account is often used again the Shroud of Turin being authentic because it refers to cloths and with the napkin requires at least three cloth's to be present. However when you include Matthew which indicates the Jesus Christ's body was wrapped in a linen cloth then an answer presents itself. The best way to reconcile these accounts is that the was one main large cloth in which the body was wrapped and one or more smaller long ones use to bind the rapping together. This possibility is supported by the fact that along one side if the shroud is a strip a little shorter than the rest of the cloth (see the to of the above image) that was sewn on that seems to have originally been part of the cloth that was cut off and later sewn back on. If the main part of the Shroud of Turin were the main rappings and this strip were used to bind the bundle then what we have in the shroud would fit the description of the linen clothes thus making the Shroud of Turin consistent with the Gospel account. You may be asking about "the napkin, that was about his head."

A linen cloth known as the Sudarium of Oviedo is a bloodstained cloth about 33" X 21". It is currently located at the Cathedral of San Salvador in Oviedo, Spain. The Sudarium of Oviedo believed to have been wrapped around Jesus Christ's head after his death to cover his blood converted face in accordance with Jewish tradition. Thus it would qualify as "the napkin, that was about his head." It most likely would have been left in  the tomb a place by itself  in a because of Jewish tradition about the sanctity of blood. Not only do the blood stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo fit the face and blood stains on the Shroud of Turin but like blood on the shroud the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo has been confirmed to be type AB human blood.

So the Shroud of Turin along wit the sewn on strip and the Sudarium of Oviedo are a perfect match to the Biblical description of burial cloths of Jesus Christ. Add to this the fact that that Shroud of Turin contains pollen that shows it was once in Jerusalem, and the consistency of the height of the shroud image with the finished burial place in the with the new dating of the Shroud of Turin to around the 1st century the best conclusion is that they are in fact the burial cloths of Jesus Christ. As such they stand as empirical evidence for the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sin and his resurrection not only validates his sacrifice but gives the Christian hope of resurrection which is a comforting hope while burying a Christian loved one. Accepting Jesus Christ's payment for your sin is an act of faith an while our faith in Jesus Christ does not rely on physical evidence the existence of such evidence, like evince for God creating the universe helps strengthen that faith.

References - actually a link to the

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
    CreationTalk email discussion group by the Northwest Creation Network

    Find educational resource at our store and support creation missions.