Surely a crime-syndicate leader employs minions to do that?
That didn't work out so well for Al Capone.
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
That didn't work out so well for Al Capone.
Not his minion tax consultants, anyway.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
This reminds me of a quip from magician Michael Close. After having a spectator select a card and return it to the deck, Close pulls out a random card and asks, "What are the odds I have correctly found your card, the three of clubs? I reckon it's 50:50... Either it is or it isn't."
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
OK, let's play by your rules. If the C14 date is wrong, it means the shroud is not 700 years old. So now the possibility of it being perhaps 1200 years old opens up. Or maybe it's 400 years old, or 950 years old. In fact, there are far more not-2000-year-old possible dates than the singular 2000-year-old date. So the odds are more likely that the shroud is not 2000 years old than it is 2000 years old. The C14 data had ruled out all of these other potential dates, which are now back in play. The lack of the C14 data actually hurts your case because the scale balance of not-2000-years-old is far heavier than 2000-years-old.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/BinaryQuestion
- Interesting idea, but that's not the way it works -- and, I'll assume that you're just pulling my leg...
- Not that such would mean that 2000 years old is more probable than not 2000 years old -- but, if I could show that the carbon dating is highly suspect, the probability that the shroud is 2000 yrs old would shift dramatically towards the positive.
Monza,
- Interesting idea, but that's not the way it works -- and, I'll assume that you're just pulling my leg...
- Not that such would mean that 2000 years old is more probable than not 2000 years old -- but, if I could show that the carbon dating is highly suspect, the probability that the shroud is 2000 yrs old would shift dramatically towards the positive.
That's exactly the way it works, like it or not.
Monza is correct and NOT pulling your leg.
If you could show the carbon dating as 'highly suspect' (and you can't) the date would shift dramatically towards unknown and NOT to a positive 2000 years old.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
No it would not. It would never mean the shroud was more likely to be authentic. How many times does this have to be explained to you?
At any rate, you have not discredited the 14C date
Last edited:
First, the idea that you can cast doubt on the C14 dating is laughable. I want to make sure everyone is aware of that.
Second, all it would do if you succeeded is remove one line of evidence. The others remain whole--the lack of diatortion, the lack of room for a head, the weave, the style, the gesso, the historical records, the contradictions with scripture, all of it.
There remains no evidence supporting your conclusion. None.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
No, you're wrong. If the carbon dating is assumed to be wrong, it says absolutely nothing about the age being 2000 years old.
Here's a way to look at it: let's say that I believed the shroud was actually the image of Alfred the Great, who died in 899 AD. It certainly bears a strong resemblance to other depictions of him. If the carbon dating is in doubt, does this greatly improve the weight of evidence that the shroud is actually from the late 9th century? Or does it add nothing to my theory of the Shroud of Alfred?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Quoted for truth.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
Agreed!
Just want to re-emphasize these points... Even if the dating is ignored, it doesn't mean the shroud can't be from the 14th century. In fact, there is substantial additional evidence, as Dinwar states above, that points to a 14th century date. All of this assuming and pretending are just thought experiments anyway. The carbon dating remains strong and there is no reasonable reason to doubt its conclusions.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Dear Mr. Savage:
It hsa been pointed out to you, myriad times by multiple posters, that this simply is not true. Had the 14C been done by the minions of the antipope, all that would mean was that the fraudulent 14C dating did not support the convergent evidence of provenance, contemporary report, and style, all of which indicate that the CIQ is ~780 years old. Nothing, not one single thing, not the least skerrick of actual evidence, indicates that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.
Last edited:
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
If you could show a reason to suspect the results of the carbon dating, you'd have done so by now. Even if you could, there's nothing to show a 1st century date.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Explain why you believe the probability shift would occur. For points in honesty, take into consideration arguments against this made numerous times.
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It wouldn't even mean that the cloth was not the age that the carbon dating says it is; it would just mean that the carbon dating could not tell us anything about the age of the cloth.
Last edited:
How about this as a potential cause:
The shroud originally was woven with a 1st-century weaving style in the first century, and was wrapped round a body but when the resurrection occurred, (in the first century) there was a massive surge of neutrons that only affected the carbon isotopes and not any others, so that the 14C level was elevated, and this has made it seem 1300-years newer than it was. For some reason, no other isotopes were affected. At the same time, another side effect altered the weaving style of the shroud to make it seem 1300-years newer than it was. In addition, the event behaved differently for the head compared to the body, giving it a shape that is not consistent with a real human.
It is just coincidence that this shroud turned up about 1300-years later than when it was used to wrap the body. It is also coincidence that some medieval people thought it was a fake and named the suspect at the time.
The image on the shroud took over a century to form, which is why it is not mentioned in the gospels, but it was still kept as a sacred object, which was proved when the image appearedin a medieval forger's workshop.
I think that deals with most objections. Or have I missed any?
The shroud originally was woven with a 1st-century weaving style in the first century, and was wrapped round a body but when the resurrection occurred, (in the first century) there was a massive surge of neutrons that only affected the carbon isotopes and not any others, so that the 14C level was elevated, and this has made it seem 1300-years newer than it was. For some reason, no other isotopes were affected. At the same time, another side effect altered the weaving style of the shroud to make it seem 1300-years newer than it was. In addition, the event behaved differently for the head compared to the body, giving it a shape that is not consistent with a real human.
It is just coincidence that this shroud turned up about 1300-years later than when it was used to wrap the body. It is also coincidence that some medieval people thought it was a fake and named the suspect at the time.
The image on the shroud took over a century to form, which is why it is not mentioned in the gospels, but it was still kept as a sacred object, which was proved when the image appeared
I think that deals with most objections. Or have I missed any?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
No. If the C14 test is somehow invalid it means we have no solid evidence for the age of the shroud. It can still be 700 years old.
Hans
Susheel
Illuminator
Double post...sorry
Last edited:
Susheel
Illuminator
Jabba, once again your notion that the C14 dating is the only evidence that the skeptics have of the shroud's inauthenticity despite the number of posts across atleast three threads, in one of which you were given free rein to post your unsubstantiated assumtions evidence reeks of dishonesty on your part.
Though, I have implied this in previous posts, I will come out and declare it here
I call shennanigans.
Your attempts here follow the standard operating procedure of woo-peddlers to keep repeating previously countered arguments in the hope that we will get tired, pack up and leave. Your posting strategy is evidence of this.
Perhaps you intend to be declared as a "hero of the faith" in your circle of friends by "standing up bravely against the naysayers" and winning the debate by having the last word. It's like that argument Dracula and Van Helsing has in Dracula: Dead and Loving It. I wish I had a gif for that.
Though, I have implied this in previous posts, I will come out and declare it here
I call shennanigans.
Your attempts here follow the standard operating procedure of woo-peddlers to keep repeating previously countered arguments in the hope that we will get tired, pack up and leave. Your posting strategy is evidence of this.
Perhaps you intend to be declared as a "hero of the faith" in your circle of friends by "standing up bravely against the naysayers" and winning the debate by having the last word. It's like that argument Dracula and Van Helsing has in Dracula: Dead and Loving It. I wish I had a gif for that.
Last edited:
- Status