Guys, please don't do this. At least when Jabba employs nicknames, he quotes the post so we can see to whom it refers. I had no idea who the "JJ" was in Peregrinus' post. Please use the proper user name. If it's too much trouble to type it, use the quote function and reply to their posts.
No. In order for the cloth to be authentic--meaning the burial shroud of Jesus Christ--Jesus would logically have to exist. There's no other way for him to have a burial shroud. However, if the cloth isn't authentic all that means is that THIS CLOTH isn't his burial shroud. Jesus not existing is one explanation. Jesus having a different burial cloth is a very real alternative explanation. As I pointed out a long time ago, belief in the Shroud of Turin necessitates heresy--the description of Jesus' burial cloth in the Bible does not match the Shroud. And if no shroud ever turns up, well, taphonomy is a harsh mistress; the overwhelming majority of organic things no longer exist. I mean, we don't have any of Jesus' old tunics, or the sticks he played with, or his sandles either. This despite the fact that at least one tunic of his was allegedly miraculously altered to be whiter than anyone could make cloth at the time.Olowkow said:
It's an authentic forgery, we know that.Charles Freeman said:
You are correct if I may interpret your statements to mean we should move on from the debate about age; the age is so firmly established that no rational disagreement is possible. The interesting questions become: Why a shroud? Why ignore the Biblical description? Why did no one catch on to the fact that dye that remained bright for 1300 years suddenly started to faid? Belief is insufficient an explanation; the Middle Ages were not, as they are constantly depicted, an intellectual wasteland, and numerous folks wrote about logic and the need to verify evidence, even Biblical evidence, in that time period. Plus, as I recall it was called out in the Middle Ages as a fraud, which raises the facinating question of why anyone would continue to believe in it. There's something goign on deep in the minds of some people that would be interesting to figure out.
smiley. I was trying to point out the huge number of presuppositions contained in the speaker's use of the word "authentic", and turn a ridiculous claim around. It struck me as odd that an apparent Christian narrator would not just take for granted the existence of Jesus, rather than suggesting that there need be any further proof beyond the Biblical "evidences". It's not odd at all. I love finding out trivia about famous people, such as Pellew, Franklin, Einstein, Gould, and others I admire. And if someone came to me and said "Pellew's a fictional character" it would be useful to have a few of his things lying around to prove them wrong. (I thougth Pellew was fictional myself until a few years ago, since the only time I'd heard fo him was in association with Horatio Hornblower, so it's a pretty good comparison.)Olowkow said:
I have no interest in re-hashing of the Party Line of this forum, one which is demonstrably void of any connection to the way theists actually think. Such statements as the above do nothing to further the investigation, and serve only to flatter the speaker's ego while destorying any chance of the speaker--and many of the audience--actually understanding the situation at hand. What you present is a cartoon theist, not even a sraw one. If you know anything about Catholic dogma, you know that what you stated is a lie. It may bear a superficial resemblance to the truth, but the issue of faith and observation is a very complex one, one that has been the subject of debate for a few thousand years. You may as well describe physics as "f=ma".
That one of the most carefully carried out instances of radiocarbon dating, using the best technology available, at three independent labs, with control samples and multiple decontamination techniques (see below) produced a dating for the shroud of between 1260 and 1390CE.
I wish to emphasize this. I have done C14 sampling. The level of control of the shroud samples is so far beyond anything expected of me that it boggles the mind. Normally for EPA work a field duplicate is run every 10 samples, and a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) is run every 20. They did two field dupes on ONE sample, with the labs doing their own duplicates. Standards are run according to the standard practices of the lab, which I'm less familiar with, but suffice to say running multiple standards for one sample is NEVER done. A signed chain of custody (with the understanding that falsification is purgery) is sufficient for the work I've done--they took video of the sampling here. Normally only one prep technique is used (the EPA has standards for those); multiple were used here. And so on.catsmate1 said:
Because we have read the pertinent information showing her objections to be groundless. The same information has been presented to you. Whether you have read it or not is up in the air.
Pam Moon doesn't appear to have any "reasonable doubt" herself, and her scientific detachment may be overwhelmed by her intense belief, seen here in a prospectus for an exhibition of pics of the Shroud she seems to have on tour.
Further to this. On the shroud story website Pam Moon posted this oddity in response to a query.
So no carbon dating of ANY cloth can be accurate, and no other test should be undertaken. She invoked the "contamination" principle, but any and all forms of this argument have been dismissed here on account of the huge mass of contaminants that would be required to skew the date. Have you any way of dealing with that objection?
