Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
This notion of Jabba's that the scientists involved in the carbon dating were conspiring to produce a medieval result makes no sense. Every single one of the scientists involved would be instant household names if the result had been 1st century. They would be world famous celebrities in the same vein as Lord Carnarvon upon discovering Tutankhamun's tomb. This would have been a spectacular discovery that would have rocketed them all to superstardom. They had everything to gain by finding a 1st century date and very little to gain by finding any other date. If anything, the fact that anything but a 1st century result was obtained should indicate that the scientists involved were unbiased and objective to the best of their abilities. Conspiracy theories to the contrary seem like the desperate last attempt of the desperate authenticist to keep their horse in the race (or flogging it as in Jabba's case :D).

And all this happened with the complicity of the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church who have watched a conspiration of rogue scientists wiping out their best evidence of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth without trying to prevent this from happening or even telling to the world what was going on? :D

Who is going to believe that?
 
And all this happened with the complicity of the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church who have watched a conspiration of rogue scientists wiping out their best evidence of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth without trying to prevent this from happening or even telling to the world what was going on? :D

Who is going to believe that?

...<SNIP> "Jabba".

Edited by jsfisher: 
Irrelevant personal details removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This notion of Jabba's that the scientists involved in the carbon dating were conspiring to produce a medieval result makes no sense. Every single one of the scientists involved would be instant household names if the result had been 1st century. They would be world famous celebrities in the same vein as Lord Carnarvon upon discovering Tutankhamun's tomb. This would have been a spectacular discovery that would have rocketed them all to superstardom. They had everything to gain by finding a 1st century date and very little to gain by finding any other date. If anything, the fact that anything but a 1st century result was obtained should indicate that the scientists involved were unbiased and objective to the best of their abilities. Conspiracy theories to the contrary seem like the desperate last attempt of the desperate authenticist to keep their horse in the race (or flogging it as in Jabba's case :D).


A conspiracy is the fallback position for so many woo peddlers, regardless of tupe of woo. When all their claims have been refuted and they can't find evidence for them, they play the conspiracy card. It's a sure sign of their failure.
 
I still want to know how any bias in the scientists, either for or against a first century date, could have affected the result of the carbon dating. The whole point of a rigorous scientific protocol such as the one used is to eliminate the effect of bias. So unless someone can demonstrate that the protocol was flawed (which no one, least of all Jabba, has done) any bias in those carrying it out is completely irrelevant.

Yea - we went down this rabbit hole with Jabba before. The gist of it was that the radiocarbon results were either manipulated or misinterpreted at all 3 labs. Jabba came close to accusing the labs of fraud and/or incompetence.

Not sure if it was this thread or the first one. And I don't want to look for it. Maybe I should make a list with post numbers by topic...
 
Yea - we went down this rabbit hole with Jabba before. The gist of it was that the radiocarbon results were either manipulated or misinterpreted at all 3 labs. Jabba came close to accusing the labs of fraud and/or incompetence.

Not sure if it was this thread or the first one. And I don't want to look for it. Maybe I should make a list with post numbers by topic...

Came close?

He did everything but frightwig his hair and say, "I'm not saying fraud, collusion, and outright dishonesty were involved, but fraud, collusion, and dishonesty had to have been involved."
 
A conspiracy is the fallback position for so many woo peddlers, regardless of tupe of woo. When all their claims have been refuted and they can't find evidence for them, they play the conspiracy card. It's a sure sign of their failure.

Jabba loves him a conspiracy, just google his name and "TWA800"
 
Carbon Dating Doubts

- Somewhere, back in time, I asked if there was anyone in this thread who didn't believe that the carbon dating effectively closed the case. (Those are not the words I used, but they are the gist.)
- As I recall a lot of respondents told me that they believed that the dating trumped the rest, and that there was no need to further consider any other evidence. No one told me the opposite.

- For whatever reasons, I can't find any of that in the archives. Am I making this up? Can someone re-direct me?
- Does anyone here think that the dating is not enough to justify concluding that the shroud is a medieval fraud?
 
The carbon dating establishes that the Shroud was created in the medieval period.

Whether it was a medieval fraud depends on whether it was originally claimed to be the actual shroud of Jesus, which has not been established.
 
- Somewhere, back in time, I asked if there was anyone in this thread who didn't believe that the carbon dating effectively closed the case. (Those are not the words I used, but they are the gist.)
- As I recall a lot of respondents told me that they believed that the dating trumped the rest, and that there was no need to further consider any other evidence. No one told me the opposite.

- For whatever reasons, I can't find any of that in the archives. Am I making this up? Can someone re-direct me?
- Does anyone here think that the dating is not enough to justify concluding that the shroud is a medieval fraud?

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

The 14C dating is the elephant in the parlor. With the 14C dating, one can no longer be said to be discussing whether the CIQ is anything other than a demonstrably medieval artifact. If one wants to overcome the 14C dating, one needs to provide actual evidence that the CIQ is 2,000 years old; not simply mutter imprecations and make unsubstantiated allegations about the 14C dating.

But here is the other elephant: Even if (dayenu!) the 14C date were to be demonstrated, as you allege, to be the product of collusion, dishonesty, or gross incompetence; even if (dayenu!) the CIQ were conclusively demonstrated to be 2,000 years old; one would STILL be left with the problems of:

-the anatomically impossible figure (that does not even match itself)

-the hydrodynamically impossible "blood"

-the scripturally inaccurate protrayal

-the clearly Byzantine nature of the representation

-and the fact that the linen was gessoed and sized, as linen is before it is painted (among other problems).

However, the 14C dating means that those questions all apply to a demonstrably medieval artifact.
 
Last edited:
Carbon Dating Doubts/Scientific Bias

I still want to know how any bias in the scientists, either for or against a first century date, could have affected the result of the carbon dating...
Pixel,
- I think that there are various ways that bias can affect the results of a study, but one obvious instance here is that Gove and others didn't want STURP involved.

The whole point of a rigorous scientific protocol such as the one used is to eliminate the effect of bias. So unless someone can demonstrate that the protocol was flawed (which no one, least of all Jabba, has done) any bias in those carrying it out is completely irrelevant.
- But the rigorous scientific protocols the experts drummed up were thrown out by the Vatican -- they were not used. While the throwing out was not due to bias of the scientists, accepting its loss, and ultimately concluding that no harm was done, could well be due to biases in part. How could they turn down this opportunity, or say afterwards that all their work was made questionable by the Church's edict?
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/Medieval

The carbon dating establishes that the Shroud was created in the medieval period.

Whether it was a medieval fraud depends on whether it was originally claimed to be the actual shroud of Jesus, which has not been established.
- OK.
 
I've read all your objections but there's just nothing to them. If you'd like to provide proof that the results are flawed, please feel free to do so. You need, for your own reasons the shroud to be authentic so you've decided that there are flaws in the testing. That's not the same as there actually being flaws in the testing.

Claims of the Shroud's authenticity need not further detain us.
 
I still want to know how any bias in the scientists, either for or against a first century date, could have affected the result of the carbon dating. The whole point of a rigorous scientific protocol such as the one used is to eliminate the effect of bias. So unless someone can demonstrate that the protocol was flawed (which no one, least of all Jabba, has done) any bias in those carrying it out is completely irrelevant.

There's probably a bias button on the machine:

"Enter +/- years to adjust results"

or perhaps:

"Enter end result required"
 
Pixel,
- I think that there are various ways that bias can affect the results of a study, but one obvious instance here is that Gove and others didn't want STURP involved.
Which affects the validity of the protocol not one whit.

- But the rigorous scientific protocols the experts drummed up were thrown out by the Vatican -- they were not used.
The world's greatest experts on the subject, at the time and now, confirmed, and continue to confirm, that the protocol used was the most rigorous ever used for a carbon dating. Unless you - someone who clearly knows nothing at all about the subject - can point to a flaw that all the world's experts somehow managed to miss, and continue to miss, you have no basis for questioning the clear and unequivocal result.
 
- I think that there are various ways that bias can affect the results of a study, but one obvious instance here is that Gove and others didn't want STURP involved.

Jabba,
How did any bias on the part of the scientists involved result in incorrect dates for the test sample and correct dates for the control sample when the test operators did not know which sample was which?
 
Jabba,
How did any bias on the part of the scientists involved result in incorrect dates for the test sample and correct dates for the control sample when the test operators did not know which sample was which?
Because innuendo equals reasonable doubt.

What if I told you that you could weave an invisible patch from pure scientific bias?
 
- Somewhere, back in time, I asked if there was anyone in this thread who didn't believe that the carbon dating effectively closed the case. (Those are not the words I used, but they are the gist.)
- As I recall a lot of respondents told me that they believed that the dating trumped the rest, and that there was no need to further consider any other evidence. No one told me the opposite.

- For whatever reasons, I can't find any of that in the archives. Am I making this up? Can someone re-direct me?

No need. Let's all answer again: the dating trumps the rest.
 
- Somewhere, back in time, I asked if there was anyone in this thread who didn't believe that the carbon dating effectively closed the case. (Those are not the words I used, but they are the gist.)
- As I recall a lot of respondents told me that they believed that the dating trumped the rest, and that there was no need to further consider any other evidence. No one told me the opposite.

"Trumping" suggests it contradicts the other evidence, when in fact it is consistent with it. The dating is sufficient to convince; so would be the other evidence without it.
 
- Somewhere, back in time, I asked if there was anyone in this thread who didn't believe that the carbon dating effectively closed the case. (Those are not the words I used, but they are the gist.)
- As I recall a lot of respondents told me that they believed that the dating trumped the rest, and that there was no need to further consider any other evidence. No one told me the opposite.

- For whatever reasons, I can't find any of that in the archives. Am I making this up? Can someone re-direct me?
- Does anyone here think that the dating is not enough to justify concluding that the shroud is a medieval fraud?


Present some evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old. Without that, nothing else you presented matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom