Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,
- That is what I'm saying.
- I disagree with their position on both counts -- but, I think it is best to deal with only one of these counts at a time, so I'm trying to show why I think that the carbon dating is not reliable enough to conclude that nothing else need be considered.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Why is it that you continue to ignore my posts?

 

[Marras]

In all of the different accounts in the gospels and other related writings detailing the discovery that Jesus had been resurrected, you'd think that somebody would have mentioned the fact that there was this spectacular and miraculous image of Jesus imprinted on the burial cloth that was left behind. Yet there is not a single mention of such a miraculous thing in any writings.

There's that one guy, whatshisface, who is an atheist shroudie who claims that all places in the gospels where the authors speak about resurrected Christ, they are speaking about the shroud.

His argument is that the image was formed naturally but the unscientific pre-modern folks who saw it could interpret it only as a sign that the spirit of Jesus had entered the shroud. And that was what the whole resurrection thing was about.

 

[Jabba]

Ignoring Posts

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Why is it that you continue to ignore my posts?

Mr. Slowvehicle,
- Why do you think?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Both Sides

Hugh,
- Our words seem to be passing in the night...
- I would call the others on this thread "non-authenticists," and would see them as (all) claiming "that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence."

It might do, if the other evidence were somehow contrary to the dates the dating gives. However, that's a moot point, since none of the evidence supports a 2000 year old date.

Zoo,
- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?

Can you name them? Or, more importantly, present the evidence that supports their conclusion?

Zoo,
- There is a library of both (scholars and evidence) at www.shroud.com.
- Or, just ask Hugh. He ultimately disagrees with their conclusions, but for the most part (I think) respects their efforts.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Pathetic

 

[Belz...]

Mr. Slowvehicle,
- Why do you think?

Ooh ! Me ! Me !

Because you can't answer them ?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/"Closes The Case?"

Ward,

- Are you still there?

- I can't remember -- do you agree with the others that the carbon dating, by itself, is enough to justify ignoring any other evidence?

 

[Craig B]

Ward,

- Are you still there?

- I can't remember -- do you agree with the others that the carbon dating, by itself, is enough to justify ignoring any other evidence?

In the absence of convincing contrary evidence, the carbon dating is completely conclusive

 

[hugh farey]

Or, just ask Hugh. He ultimately disagrees with their conclusions, but for the most part (I think) respects their efforts.

Yes I do, and if anybody on this forum wanted to discuss any of the curious anomalies that beset any investigation into the Shroud, I could mention a few. However, I get the impression that opinions are so polarised that actually there is little interest in them, so I tend to leave these points to discussion on shroudstory.

 

[carlitos]

Ward,

- Are you still there?

- I can't remember -- do you agree with the others that the carbon dating, by itself, is enough to justify ignoring any other evidence?

You still have your burden of proof ass-backwards. If you have evidence that the burial shroud of Jesus Christ is 2000 years old, then please present your evidence. Stop worrying about anything else.

 

[Akhenaten]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.


Why is it that you continue to ignore my posts?

Mr. Slowvehicle,
- Why do you think?

I'll take "lack of ability to form a coherent response", Alex.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ward,

- Are you still there?

- I can't remember -- do you agree with the others that the carbon dating, by itself, is enough to justify ignoring any other evidence?

I believe the way forward is for you to list the things that you "DO" remember and we'll start from there.

 

[Lucian]

Zoo,
- There are so many credible scholars who believe the opposite. Can you really just dismiss their opinions?

Zoo,
- There is a library of both (scholars and evidence) at www.shroud.com.
- Or, just ask Hugh. He ultimately disagrees with their conclusions, but for the most part (I think) respects their efforts.

Jabba,
- It is your assertion.
- It is thus your responsibility to support it.
- It is not our job to go to shroud.com to try to figure out which "credible scholars" you mean.
- It is not Hugh's responsibility to support your assertion.
- It really doesn't matter anyway because your assertion is a big honking argument from authority, a tactic much beloved by proponents of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. The Discovery Institute maintains a list of scientists who question evolution. 9/11 truthers tout the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. And people who believe Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare--well, they've got the best list because it's such an old conspiracy theory. They've got Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Walt Whitman, etc. These lists attempt to disguise the fact that only a tiny percentage of scholars in relevant fields actually accept the fringe theory. More importantly though, a list of scholars means nothing. What matters is the evidence they provide, the strength of their arguments, not their names. And, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and its precursor, the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is medieval is extremely strong, and the evidence that it was actually the shroud of Jesus is extremely weak.

 

[Tricky]

- I disagree with their position on both counts -- but, I think it is best to deal with only one of these counts at a time, so I'm trying to show why I think that the carbon dating is not reliable enough to conclude that nothing else need be considered.

This is a typical stance taken by shroud believers. They seem to think that if they can draw doubt upon even one bit of data used to debunk the claim, then they need not be concerned with the mountains of other evidence against shroud authenticity. For example, why is the face on the shroud in two dimensions when a direct transfer of the image would include a "wrap-around" effect, distorting the facial image greatly? And there are so very many other issues that remain unaddressed.

 

[Monza]

Ward,

- Are you still there?

- I can't remember -- do you agree with the others that the carbon dating, by itself, is enough to justify ignoring any other evidence?

But no one is saying they want to ignore all the other evidence. What the general consensus is, is that the carbon dating is enough to state the shroud is not of the first century, even in the absence of other supporting evidence. In reality you'll find that most posters here, rather than ignoring, have mentioned quite a few other pieces of evidence. Catsmate1's list below is a great example. What is remarkable, is that there are multiple lines of evidence that point to a medieval origin.

The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic, spectroscopic and radioisotopic), expert examination (textile, weave and artistic style) and historical research (comparison to others, culture and documentation) and is supported by other evidence:

Historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a bo.dy lying flay (the arms aren't long enough).

Textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testimony: the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake not many year later.

Artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods.

Analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin.

Cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355.

Serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue.

Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.

 

[Akhenaten]

Zoo,
- There is a library of both (scholars and evidence) at www.shroud.com.

Who is "Zoo" and why are you giving him vague directions to a website which is so confusing that it's unclear whether or not it actually falsifies every claim you remember having made?

- Or, just ask Hugh. He ultimately disagrees with their conclusions, but for the most part (I think) respects their efforts.

Hugh isn't the one making ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims, Jabba. YOU are.

That's why people are asking YOU.

Have YOU forgotten how to internet?



Apologies if this response is incomprehensible to you. I can re-format it as a list if you'd find that helpful.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mr. Slowvehicle,
- Why do you think?

The reason I asked the question is because I do not understand your behaviour, particularly anent claims which you have made before, and the deficiencies of which have been pointed out to you, repeatedly.

I would, in fact, appreciate it if you would explain (since you have made it clear that you are, in fact, reading my posts). I would particularly appreciate your response to

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10589351#post10589351

and

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10587545#post10587545

 

[Giordano]

Mr. Slowvehicle,
- Why do you think?

I will second Belz's proposal: because you can't.

I will also add that this has been your consistent pattern on these threads: to simply ignore the many points that invalidate your hypothesis, to pick the apparently least unsupportive person here (I don't know of a single person, other than you, who supports your views), and attempt to engage in a two way conversation with them, in which you repeatedly re-ask them questions for which they have already given you answers, but not the answers you would have wanted.

I expressly do not wish to demean your self-described memory problems. I fully understand and sympathize. But if you and your friends do sense that memory of specific facts, citations, and statements is a difficulty for you, you really need to put in the private, undistracted, detailed work first on your own to organize what you hope to be a later, convincing argument for the authenticity of the Shroud that you can bring here.

Your current approach is actually undermining your goal by making it further appear that arguments in favor of the Shroud are extremely vague and unsupported. Assuming that your goal is to convince people of the authenticity of the Shroud, rather than simply have a "coffee shop" setting where you can expound on and on about your views without anyone questioning them.

 

[Belz...]

I expressly do not wish to demean your self-described memory problems.

I will: if you have memory problems, you organize in consequence. Failure to do so is not an excuse.

 

[Mojo]

- I can't remember -- do you agree with the others that the carbon dating, by itself, is enough to justify ignoring any other evidence?

Think very carefully about this, Jabba: if the shroud dates from after 1,000AD, is it possible that it was used to wrap a body in the first century AD?