Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[zooterkin]

That update was from 2012.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That update was from 2012.

Has anything changed since then? Oh, the number of followers, perhaps....

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts

- As stated before, I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the carbon dating. The following is one of my summaries.

Hugh and Ward,

- Everyone else will be asking me for citations and links. Please let me know if and when you need them.
- Here’s my situation.

1. (I’ve been busy on another project.)

2. I think that everyone here -- besides me -- believes that
a. While we can never be totally sure about essentially any conclusion, there is not enough doubt about the carbon dating results to warrant serious weighing of any other evidence. (IOW, this case was effectively closed by the carbon dating.)
b. And besides, the other evidence supports inauthenticity anyway…

3. Since I do want the shroud to be authentic, I can’t fully trust my own current conclusions about this — but so far, I do disagree on both counts.
4. I’ll try to tackle the latter count, but first, I need to shed its blocker — if I can. (I used to play American football.)
5. Mostly, I’m really surprised that you two are so confident about the carbon dating (the “blocker”) – so, that’s what I will try to focus on for now.
6. Unfortunately, it will take me awhile to dig up the real evidence for my claims in that regard.
7. Consequently, I’ll present a lot of my claims before I can (even in my own opinion) adequately support them – figuring that you guys can fill in most of the blanks yourself, and then confront me about the rest.

8. I’ve previously listed my different areas of concern re the dating, but here’s an updated list:
9. The emotionality in the 10 years of negotiation leading up to the test.
10. Significant protocols determined, but not followed.
11. The size and location of the sample.
12. Potential of repair, contamination and “new" linen.13. Church (rather than scientists) selects sample.
14. Sample selected at the last moment, after two hours of “ecumenical” debate.
15. Final step in procedure seen by only 2 people, and not videotaped.
16. No test for chemical composition.
17. No archeologist involved.
18. STURP deliberately excluded.
19. Gove eventually excluded.
20. A clear age gradient within the sample.

21. Here’s a quote from “The Coming of the Quantum Christ” by John Klotz.
[Professor Emanuela] Marinelli related to the Valencia Conference [in 2000] how competent scientists attacked the execution of the process and charged the labs with concealing the data necessary to determine adequately what they had done in their experiments. She cited a fifteen point critique of Philippe Bourcier de Carbon delivered at an international symposium in Rome in 1993: 14 (1) Absence of a formal report of the sampling; (2) Absence of a video archive on the final steps of the samples packaging; (3) In the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and the weight of the samples by people in charge of the sampling (4) Breaches of the protocols initially planned for the operation of dating; (5) Rejection of the usual procedure of double-blind test; (6) Refusal of the interdisciplinary documentation, which is usual in the procedures for radiocarbon dating; (7) Exclusion of acknowledged specialists in the Shroud, particularly American scientists who participated in previous works of STURP; (8) Communication to the laboratories, most unusual, of the dates of the control samples prior to testing; (9) Intercommunication of results among the three laboratories during the job; (10) Disclosure to the media of the first results before the delivering of the findings; (11) Refusal to publish raw results of the measurements (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989); (12) Non-explanation of the unique isolation of the confidence interval of the measures performed by the Oxford laboratory compared to those made by other laboratories; (13) Unacceptable value of 6.4 published in the journal Nature for the chi-squared statistical test on the results of the radiocarbon dosage on the Shroud; (14) Rejection of any cross-debate on the statistical measures performed; (15) Rejection, absolutely uncommon, of the publication of the statistical expertise of this operation, officially entrusted to professor Bray of “G. Colonnetti” Institute of Turin (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989).
- Klotz, John (2014-09-30). The Coming of the Quantum Christ: The Shroud of Turin and the Apocalypse of Selfishness (Kindle Locations 5350-5365). John C. Klotz. Kindle Edition.

- I'll be back.

 

[carlitos]

20-point lists? No problem.

Yes or no questions? --I'll be back.

This thread is so far beyond parody, it's back to parody.

1. (I’ve been busy on another project.)

ETA - Here's a tip for any young writers that might be reading this. If, for some reason, you have to produce a 20 point list, and the #1 item on that list is so unimportant that you need to de-emphasize the point by putting it in parentheses, perhaps you should re-sort your list into a more logical system. Or go take a junior-college writing course.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Repair

In short, Jabba, and anybody else who cares to read this, I do not accept that any repair has been carried out on the radiocarbon corner of the sample, and believe that any contamination of the radiocarbon corner made the Shroud appear older, not younger, than it really is.

- Sorry, Hugh. I misunderstood what you said.

- I think that this is the current status of the repair argument. So far, I'm losing.

 

[Mashuna]

- As stated before, I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the carbon dating. The following is one of my summaries.

Unfortunately, you seem not to have posted any of the reasonable doubts, and instead come up with a list of entirely unreasonable ones.

 

[John Jones]

- As stated before, I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the carbon dating. The following is one of my summaries.

[snip]

Knock this stuff off and just present your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Even if ¹⁴C dating were pure science fiction/fantasy, that doesn't help your authenticity claims one iota.

 

[John Jones]

- I think that this is the current status of the repair argument. So far, I'm losing.

You're losing every aspect of this discussion.

 

[Dinwar]

Everyone of those points has been refuted, Jabba, and it is inherently dishonest to present them as if they have not even been discussed. All this shows is that you have no intent to ever consider any information that disagrees with your a priori conclusions.

I think that this is the current status of the repair argument. So far, I'm losing.

You've LOST.

1) There is no evidence for repair in that area.

2) If there WAS a repair, the nature of those repairs (reweaving) would make it an ideal place for C14 dating, as it would be essentially a random sampling of the entire cloth.

Clear enough?

 

[jond]

How do ANY of those points (which have all been thoroughly refuted previously within this thread) provide evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old? Even if, by some miracle, you could prove that the C14 dating is wrong, there's still no reason to think the correct date is 2000 years old.

Strike 15. You're long since out, and still standing at the plate like a petulant 8 year old complaining that you weren't ready for the pitch.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- As stated before, I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the carbon dating. The following is one of my summaries.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Are you aware that you have raised EVERY ONE of these points before,and that EVERY ONE has been dealt with by multiple posters?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I think that this is the current status of the repair argument. So far, I'm losing.

Mr. Savage: what evidence do you have that indicates that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[Loss Leader]

Knock this stuff off and just present your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Even if ¹⁴C dating were pure science fiction/fantasy, that doesn't help your authenticity claims one iota.

Agreed.

Jabba, the carbon dating is not blocking your argument for the shroud's age because you haven't made an argument for the shroud's age.


In football terms: You've sent your defensive team out on the second down before you've offense has actually played (let alone scored).

 

[Nonpareil]

- As stated before, I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the carbon dating.

Allow me to reiterate:

NO ONE CARES.

Present your evidence for the Shroud being two thousand years old or leave.

 

[Craig4]

Why is "no archeologist" still on your list? What would an archeologist tell you about an artifact completely removed from its context? Why do you feel like one needed to be present when there were experts on textiles already present?

 

[Dinwar]

I found the link again!

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Abelard%20for%20Today.HTM

Money quote:

In order to prove the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection, the Shroud would have to:

-Date authentically from about 30 A.D.
-Have been in Palestine in 30 A. D.
-Bear an image that authentically dates from 30 A. D. (it could have been created later)
-Bear the imprint of a real person (as opposed to an artificial image)
-Bear the imprint of a person who was actually crucified (as opposed to simulating the effects or having marks from some other cause)
-Bear the imprint of Christ as opposed to anyone else
-No longer contain a body because of a supernatural resurrection, as opposed to the body being removed

Break any link, and the Shroud no longer makes its case. So, even if the shroud is the actual burial shroud of Christ, all we have is a historical relic connected to a famous person.

Jabba is, after several years, stuck on Step 1. Note that Dutch has no inherent bias against the shroud's authenticity; it's a demonstration of hte fact that just because something is true, doesn't always mean we can know it. There ARE limits to human knowledge (to paraphrase Bender, the laws of taphonomy be a harsh mistress), and often facts, particularly about the past, are simply unknowable.

So giving Jabba the absolute best case scenario--that the shroud is actually authentic, and using the data he has provided--we STILL cannot conclude that the shroud is authentic. EVERY link in that chain of reasoning remains broken.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/H&A/Paint

Did you read my post? At all?

You are saying, in essence, that, since the tests H & A ran identified substances that are also found in blood, even though every one of those substances have other, common, sources, the tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood.

The reality is that the H & A tests did not rule out the presence of blood. That is the strongest inference that can be reached. The tests also did not rule out organic, porphyrin-bearing pigments in egg white binders (for instance)...

Slowvehicle,

- I never said -- even in essence -- that H&A's tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood. I only said that they "support" the presence of blood. I accept that those tests did not "rule out" paint.

- So far, it appears to me that H&A, and most other scientists studying their tests, figure that so many different tests yielding 'positive' results indicates that the presence of blood is highly probable.
- Would you agree that H&A imply that to be the case?

 

[Dinwar]

- So far, it appears to me that H&A, and most other scientists studying their tests, figure that so many different tests yielding 'positive' results indicates that the presence of blood is highly probable.
- Would you agree that H&A imply that to be the case?

Let's say we do. So what? We're dealing with a cloth that existed for centuries, and is part of a religion where self-mutilation is, if not encouraged, certainly praised. We are dealing with humans, an organism that is remarkably fragile (how many cuts do you have on your hands right now? I have a half-dozen, thanks to some annoying bushes on my jobsite). Remember, this cloth went through a fire hot enough to melt metal; such fires draw a fair amount of blood (if my experience with metal casting is any indication; some good friends say that I'm accident prone, though). And it is entirely possible that an artist found actual blood--perhaps using their own--to draw with.

So there are mutiple--I would say a myriad or plethera of--explanations, only one of which is that it's blood from the person who's image is on the cloth.

As an aside, how long does blood remain detectable? It's so short a timeframe that I've always treated degredation at more or less instant (in geologic terms; skin and squishy organs are treated the same).

Is there any way to tell blood from skin cells in these tests? Proper care for relics was....iffy....in the past. (now I'm picturing 343Guilty Spark yelling at monks--"You have no concept of containment!" ) We know dust accumulated behind the cloth, between it and the backing. It's not a stretch to assume that some stuck to the front of the cloth. Could that yeild a false positive? For that matter, could the cloth?

Lots of questions remain, Jabba. Care to answer any of them?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good evening, Mr Savage.

I must say, as charitably as possible, that I find this:

Slowvehicle,
- I never said -- even in essence -- that H&A's tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood. I only said that they "support" the presence of blood. I accept that those tests did not "rule out" paint.

...to be cynically sophistic, in the light of this:

- As I understand it, that is what is meant by "positive for blood." Basically, H&A found only what they should have found if the stains are blood -- they didn't find anything that they shouldn't find if the stains are blood.

You certainly seem to be pitching the idea that, based upon the tests run by H & A, it is more likely than not that the CIQ contains stains of actual human blood.

For instance:

- So far, it appears to me that H&A, and most other scientists studying their tests, figure that so many different tests yielding 'positive' results indicates that the presence of blood is highly probable.
- Would you agree that H&A imply that to be the case?

You continue to try to find a way that you can phrase what I have said as supporting your position. You ought not to do that.

It is clear that H & A believe as you do, that the CIQ must be "authentic", and that they are straining at any "fact" they can marshal to support their belief.

It is NOT clear that "most other scientists" agree with the belief to which H & A cling. What other scientists do you know of that "figure" that the "presence of blood [on the CIQ] is highly probable? Be specific, with citations.

What H & A are willing to "imply" (for that matter, what H & A would be willing to swear to on their mothers' graves), is immaterial. H & A (nor anyone else) have yet to demonstrate the presence of blood on the CIQ.

Nor can it be left out that you continue to avoid a centralissue, which you have yet to address: Suppose, arguendo, that it could be demonstrated that the CIQ did, in fact, contain actual human blood. How does the presence of human blood in any way indicate that the CIQ is not, in fact, ~780 years old?

Please do not continue to ignore this question.

 

[Loss Leader]

Slowvehicle,

- I never said -- even in essence -- that H&A's tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood. I only said that they "support" the presence of blood. I accept that those tests did not "rule out" paint.

- So far, it appears to me that H&A, and most other scientists studying their tests, figure that so many different tests yielding 'positive' results indicates that the presence of blood is highly probable.
- Would you agree that H&A imply that to be the case?

Blood, blood, blood, blood ...

What happened to that promise to provide your argument for the shroud's age?