Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Craig4]

- How can you all expect a newcomer to read the 13,000 posts she missed in order to find your proofs? Give Vixen some specific evidence refuting her arguments.
- You keep saying that you've refuted all of my arguments, but you haven't -- you've refuted some of my arguments, but only a few. Show her just where you have refuted them, other than those I've admitted to. She seems a lot quicker than me and can probably find some time to respond to some of your so-called refutations that I couldn't find time for.
- And, she's on your side -- be a little friendly and see if you can actually support your claims against some friendly disagreement.

I'm sorry, which of your arguments do you believe are still in play? At this point best to stick with the age of the cloth. Without that, nothing else matters.

 

[John Jones]

- How can you all expect a newcomer to read the 13,000 posts she missed in order to find your proofs? Give Vixen some specific evidence refuting her arguments.
- You keep saying that you've refuted all of my arguments, but you haven't -- you've refuted some of my arguments, but only a few. Show her just where you have refuted them, other than those I've admitted to. She seems a lot quicker than me and can probably find some time to respond to some of your so-called refutations that I couldn't find time for.
- And, she's on your side -- be a little friendly and see if you can actually support your claims against some friendly disagreement.

It's simple: You ask the newcomer to read all the posts that came before. Just like that.

All your 'arguments' have been refuted again and again. You can't remember what you posted 3 days ago.

Don't expect us to pretend that your 'arguments' have any logical or intellectual integrity.

 

[John Jones]

- How can you all expect a newcomer to read the 13,000 posts she missed in order to find your proofs? Give Vixen some specific evidence refuting her arguments.
- You keep saying that you've refuted all of my arguments, but you haven't -- you've refuted some of my arguments, but only a few. Show her just where you have refuted them, other than those I've admitted to. She seems a lot quicker than me and can probably find some time to respond to some of your so-called refutations that I couldn't find time for.
- And, she's on your side -- be a little friendly and see if you can actually support your claims against some friendly disagreement.

The primary claim that needs to be supported is that the CIQ is 2000 years old. Why haven't you supported that claim?

 

[Craig4]

Once again Jabba, the cloth on which the image is imprinted must be older than the image. If the cloth isn't 2000 years old, the image isn't 2000 years old. Three labs tested the cloth sample taken from an area that showed no signs of being a patch. All three labs cleaned the samples. All three labs came up with similar date ranges none before the 13th century. This is a rare case where the carbon dating supports the documentary evidence.

Now, tell us about how the cloth is 2000 years old.

 

[Craig4]

Once again Jabba, the cloth on which the image is imprinted must be older than the image. If the cloth isn't 2000 years old, the image isn't 2000 years old. Three labs tested the cloth sample taken from an area that showed no signs of being a patch. All three labs cleaned the samples. All three labs came up with similar date ranges none before the 13th century. This is a rare case where the carbon dating supports the documentary evidence.

Now, tell us about how the cloth is 2000 years old.

 

[John Jones]

I have an idea!

Jabba, why don't you tell Vixen why you think the shroud is 2000 years old?

Vixen, you can then agree with everything Jabba says.

It would be awesome!

 

[SezMe]

<snip>
- I'll be back.

- Sounds good to me. I'll be back.

Jabba, the first post is from April 7th, the latter from today. It's nice to see you back but it's sad that you bring with you no evidence that the cloth is ~2000 years old.

Note that a) you have claimed to be in possession of such data and b) you claim to have spent untold hours over several years on the shroud. Why, then, do you have to come back?

I know this is yet another request but bear with me: Please provide specific, direct evidence that the shroud is about 2000 years old. NOW.

 

[Susheel]

Jabba, when you did your little impression of duh Aaaahnold yesterday, I expected that ypou were going to come back with a response to Monza's:

Evidence toward a 14th century date:
The linen of the shroud was radiocarbon dated, and determined to have been made around 1260-1390 AD.

Evidence toward a 1st century date:
<Jabba, or anyone else, to add evidence here.>

I guess, I was wrong.

You keep harping about how little time you have to respond and but choose to engage in all other inanities. I guess you can focus on what you agreed to and Vixen is a big girl and can take care of herself. I guess she would be more benefited from your non-interference considering your performance thus far.

Unless ofcourse it was planned as a tag--team effort...

 

[Susheel]

How can you all expect a newcomer to read the 13,000 posts she missed in order to find your proofs?

It is called research and learning. Nothing comes easy and learning is more effective if done on your own. At school did you complain to your teacher about how she could expect you to read up on all those centuries of stuff that constituted the collected knowledge to date?

Actually, going through the two threads from the begining is actually the easy way out. After all the p[eople who originally posted did all the hard work.

 

[zooterkin]

It was tested 1988. IIRC only once before. What is the problem in agreeing testing standards acceptable to all, with blind controls, as an ongoing research project? Sending off nine samples from one tiny area of the cloth, with no controls, is not satisfactory by any stretch of imagination.

What do you mean, no controls? Are you going to explain your comment about the Zurich sample being 1000 years off, when it wasn't?

Bring in the archaeological scientists.

Why? What do you think they would add?

Let the Vatican scientists have a bash.

Who's stopping them?

Let's have transparency!

About what? What is being hidden?

 

[Sideroxylon]

I have an idea!

Jabba, why don't you tell Vixen why you think the shroud is 2000 years old?

Vixen, you can then agree with everything Jabba says.

It would be awesome!

Or equally awesome would beJabba relating the skeptical counter points, which have been repeatedly provided in this discussion, to Vixens arguments.

Its part of his declared effective debate strategy and I am sure he must be well versed in these counter points by now.

 

[Susheel]

He had numbers and everything...I think he has everything properly indexed so that he can quickly access it any time he wants.

 

[Stuart]

To play devil's advocate (no pun intended!) the row over the Turin shroud is complicated by the following issues:

1. Mixing "genres": Theology versus Science
2. Historical issues: there is a belief Jesus never existed hence ipso facto it's a fake
3. Faith: those who argue from the stance it is a religious miracle

1. We know such a person existed. He is mentioned by the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus, who can be seen to have been accurate in other respects. He confirms this person was crucified.

More recent history confirms the existence of a Roman governor general named Pontius Pilate, in that part of the world as of that time.

2. Notwithstanding the above, even if Jesus existed historically, that is not to say he had miraculous powers. Hence, runs the argument, the idea of his image preserved on a cloth, out of the many thousands crucified throughout the ages is absurd. OTOH even if the cloth only dates back to between 900AD and 1200AD, it could be argued to be an astonishing feat for that age to design a cloth that shows a reverse negative of a crucified man when X-Rayed. Why would the hospitalier knights of the crusade have bothered preserving it as a relic.

3. Anyone who has visited the British Museum will know 2,000 is a mere five minutes in history when compared to Egyptology artefacts which date back over five thousand years, and even Roman mummies, the Romans consistent in their copying other cultures, including the ancient Greeks and Judeo-Christianity.

There was an Ice Age exhibition with artistic sculptures estimated to be up to 48K years old.

So, the resistance to the idea of the Turin Shroud being "the Face of Jesus" comes from those resistant to religious belief, those who scorn the idea of "miracles" anyway. However, it does not rule out the Turin Shroud could be genuine, especially the paucity of carbon dating tests run on it.

Which camp are you, and why?

I've read all the thread and can firmly say FAKE

In my opinion, if you have read all the thread and are ignoring the C14 dating then you are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la - I can't hear you"

 

[Pixel42]

There were controls. This was pointed-out several times. Would you mind telling us your scientific credentials?

Indeed, and has also been pointed out one of the labs also ashed the samples to ensure blinding, though I'd like to know how anyone's knowledge of which sample is which could possibly affect the machine which produced the readings.

Blinding is essential when judgement is required to interpret the results (eg in a clinical trial, when a doctor needs to assess how much improvement the patients have made so should not know which were taking the medication and which the placebo) but there is no judgement required to read a figure off an instrument. Suggesting that the results can't be accepted if they weren't blinded is tantamount to accusing the three labs of deliberately falsifying their results.

 

[Sideroxylon]

If the Varican had any doubts about the carbon tests and cared to know if the cloth is authentic or not they would run them again. But then why let the facts get in the way of people's feel good spiritual feelings about it.

 

[Peter i]

If the Varican had any doubts about the carbon tests and cared to know if the cloth is authentic or not they would run them again. But then why let the facts get in the way of people's feel good spiritual feelings about it.

.... and stop the money rolling!

 

[Craig4]

It was tested 1988. IIRC only once before. What is the problem in agreeing testing standards acceptable to all, with blind controls, as an ongoing research project? Sending off nine samples from one tiny area of the cloth, with no controls, is not satisfactory by any stretch of imagination. Bring in the archaeological scientists. Let the Vatican scientists have a bash.

Let's have transparency!

What is it that an archeologist is going to tell you that the two experts in textiles wouldn't have? No one has any idea of the context in which the the shroud was found. Absent that, there's not much an archeologist can tell you. The better plan would be to have textile experts present, which there were.

The big picture here is that the documentary evidence supports a date no later than the 13th century. The typology of the cloth supports a 13th century date as does the carbon dating. How many bites at the apple do we need here. If all the evidence points to a date range, there's a really good chance that the cloth is from that date range.

Nothing is stopping the Vatican from doing more tests. If they really wanted to know how old the thing was, it is in their power to find out.

 

[Craig4]

Indeed, and has also been pointed out one of the labs also ashed the samples to ensure blinding, though I'd like to know how anyone's knowledge of which sample is which could possibly affect the machine which produced the readings.

Blinding is essential when judgement is required to interpret the results (eg in a clinical trial, when a doctor needs to assess how much improvement the patients have made so should not know which were taking the medication and which the placebo) but there is no judgement required to read a figure off an instrument. Suggesting that the results can't be accepted if they weren't blinded is tantamount to accusing the three labs of deliberately falsifying their results.

I'll just add that all three labs placed the control samples in the correct date range.

 

[zooterkin]

Nothing is stopping the Vatican from doing more tests. If they really wanted to know how old the thing was, it is in their power to find out.

Surely they already know?

 

[catsmate]

According to De Wesselow, the 1988 carbon dating exercise was defective.

Based on what science?

Three samples were sent to each of Arizona, Oxford and Zurich.

Actually true.

Zurich claimed one sample was1,000years too late and another 1,000 too early.

No. I suggest you look at the published results.

There was no control, as the distinctive linen weave was immediately recognisable.

Conspiracy mongering?

Archeological scientists were excluded. As carbon dating is imprecise, contrary to general perception, archeologists consider historical context when estimating dates.

What do you mean by "archeological scientists"? The process for the selection of the sampled are was well considered.
And as for considering content, well that augers very badly for those who believe the shroud is genuine; the context is overwhelmingly in favour of a medieval origin.

Evidence points to the shroud having been in existence long before 1260: the fact that the lignin in the fibres of the cloth has lost its vanillin, indicate it is over 1,300.

Rubbish. The vanillin "test" is utter nonsense.

It is a crucified figure, crucifixion was outlawed in Christendom in C4.

Irrelevant. The figure on the shroud clearly doesn't show an actual crucifixion.

Scourge marks show antiquities era - the use of a Roman flagrum - as well as the weave showing antiquity, not the Middle Ages.

Again rubbish. There is no evidence of any scourge marks except in the imagination of believers.

If Middle Ages the art would be idealised, not the stark image we have.

Nope. It meshes well with the styles of it's period of origin.

Analysing art, takes it back at least to C6.

Citations required.

Lab samples were contaminated or chemically altered.

And it's back to the conspiracies. Pathetic.

Part of the shroud was scorched.

Correct and irrelevent.

Bioplastic coating transferred bacteria and fungi to the cloth.

Nope. This nonsense has been debunked. Perhaps you should read up on the testing pro0cess and the decontamination procedures used?

De Wesselow writes: "The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science".

His opinion. Worthless.

It doesn't seem to me to be "settled" "the Shroud dates to C13".

Ah but it is for the perspective of science.