Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

Monza,

- I agree with most of what you said. I'm just more convinced of the match than are you.

- The 700 AD carbon dating of the SoO, in concert with the first reporting of its existence, is evidence against a first century date, and tilts the scale away from a first century conclusion. I would say, however, that -- as evidence against the carbon dating of the SoT -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion. So, the overall effect of matching the two linens would be to move the scale towards a first century conclusion.

- If you can accept that reasoning, I suggest that we scrutinize the argument for a match between the two linens.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage.

In what way do you think any of this demonstrates that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?

 

[Kid Eager]

Monza,

- I agree with most of what you said. I'm just more convinced of the match than are you.

- The 700 AD carbon dating of the SoO, in concert with the first reporting of its existence, is evidence against a first century date, and tilts the scale away from a first century conclusion. I would say, however, that -- as evidence against the carbon dating of the SoT -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion. So, the overall effect of matching the two linens would be to move the scale towards a first century conclusion.

- If you can accept that reasoning, I suggest that we scrutinize the argument for a match between the two linens.

In *what* universe does that argument make sense?

One shroud carbon-dated and found to align with historical records, is an argument AGAINST another shroud also carbon-dated and similarly found to align with its historical records?????

What utter transparent flim-flam.

 

[Belz...]

So, Slowvehicle, did you? Honestly? Hand on heart?

Can we take that as a "no" ?

 

[Belz...]

- The 700 AD carbon dating of the SoO, in concert with the first reporting of its existence, is evidence against a first century date, and tilts the scale away from a first century conclusion. I would say, however, that -- as evidence against the carbon dating of the SoT -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion.

Seriously, Jabba, you get an F in logic. Literally _nothing_ that has been posted to you in the last two years has resulted in any learning by you. You wallow in your ignorance as if it gives you a lisense to invent the very rules of logic. No one here will buy your nonsense, Jabba. Either make an effort to grow up and learn, or be a man and admit defeat.

 

[Loss Leader]

the carbon dating of the SoT[/U] -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion. So, the overall effect of matching the two linens would be to move the scale towards a first century conclusion.

So, you go to the ticket counter at Lagaurdia and ask for a ticket to Los Angeles, California. They give you a ticket to El Paso, Texas. You land and insist to everyone that you're in California. They show you a map that indicates that not only are you in Texas but that you're still 761 miles from Los Angeles. You say, "I'm so much closer to Los Angeles than I was that I might as well be in LA. I'm going to check out the Hollywood sign." And then you go wandering around El Paso.

 

[Vixen]

I did not; nor did I say that I did, nor imply that I did, not pretend that I did. The again, I did not pretend to reference the source, either.

I will not refer others to a source I have not read. I will not claim support form a source I have not read.



Do I understand you to say that the CIQ cannot be the True Shroud^TM? You should make that clear to Mr. Savage.

I wouldn't say cannot, as IMV it has not been tested extensively enough.

I did make clear my source was De Wesselow. There are > 100 pages of bibliography plus comprehensive index in addition to the 348 page text plus two sections of photos and illustrations.

As physics is not my forte, I felt no desire to read the original conference paper.

I am a reader at British Library and if something piques my interest, I do indeed go to the reading rooms to order it and look at it for myself.

 

[Giordano]

Monza,

- I agree with most of what you said. I'm just more convinced of the match than are you.

- The 700 AD carbon dating of the SoO, in concert with the first reporting of its existence, is evidence against a first century date, and tilts the scale away from a first century conclusion. I would say, however, that -- as evidence against the carbon dating of the SoT -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion. So, the overall effect of matching the two linens would be to move the scale towards a first century conclusion.

- If you can accept that reasoning, I suggest that we scrutinize the argument for a match between the two linens.

Honestly, I have to put this in the same category as your "I forgot, if I am remembering correctly." post. Very dry.

Just to be sure I get it right, you are arguing that:
1. The SoO isotope dating is less certain than that of the SoT.
2. The SoO and SoT are both from Jesus.
3. Therefore although the mean of the calculated dates of both the Sot and SoO are the same, around 700 AD, the larger uncertainty in the SoO date somehow reduces the certainty of the SoT.

I will just ignore the strength of the match and just ask if I really got it right: you are maintaining that if two studies find the date of (essentially) the same object (two parts of the supposed burial garments of Jesus) and both indicate a ~700 AD date but one study is more accurate than the other, then the less accurate study actually reduces the accuracy of the former and shifts the "balance" to 1st century.

I feel certain that I must have misunderstood you. But if this is indeed what you are suggesting, then no, I do not accept this reasoning at all. Perhaps you should think about this some more, just in terms of statistics and logic.

 

[Vixen]

What arguments convinced you of this?

It was more to do with a lack of argument. 1988 was a long time ago. The Vatican should have enabled further state of the art testing. That is suspicious.

 

[Giordano]

I am a reader at British Library and if something piques my interest, I do indeed go to the reading rooms to order it and look at it for myself.

I am envious of you in this! I've been to the British Library only a few times, but I enjoyed it each time and was overwhelmed by their collection and the documents on display.

 

[Vixen]

Can we take that as a "no" ?

Yes, I have no desire to read the paper. The abstract, summary and De Wesselow's critique was quite enough to give me an understanding of the objections raised.

 

[Monza]

Monza,

- I agree with most of what you said. I'm just more convinced of the match than are you.

- The 700 AD carbon dating of the SoO, in concert with the first reporting of its existence, is evidence against a first century date, and tilts the scale away from a first century conclusion. I would say, however, that -- as evidence against the carbon dating of the SoT -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion. So, the overall effect of matching the two linens would be to move the scale towards a first century conclusion.

- If you can accept that reasoning, I suggest that we scrutinize the argument for a match between the two linens.

No, this is just not logical thinking. Even if I accepted everything you said (which I don't), we're still left with a piece of linen that was manufactured 600 years after Christ's death. We then both agree that the SoT is not the authentic burial shroud of Christ, and we are just arguing about the age.*

I think Loss Leaders analogy above is worth thinking about.



* A man asks a woman, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt if he paid you one million dollars?"
"You bet I would!", she exclaims.
"How about sleeping with me for twenty bucks?"
"Ew", she sneers. "Of course not. What do you think I am?"
The guy smiles, "Well, we've already established that. Now we are just haggling about the price."

 

[Vixen]

I am envious of you in this! I've been to the British Library only a few times, but I enjoyed it each time and was overwhelmed by their collection and the documents on display.

Yes, it is truly awesome. I went to the recent Magna Carta exhibition.

They had horror fiction before that.

There is a permanent collection of the Codex Thingy (?), the original Lindisfarne Gospels, Tyndales, ancient sacred scripts from all over the world in all the different religions. Many of them illuminated with gold leaf and intrinsic artwork.

Take along proof of residence and ID, tell them you want to research, and they'll issue a reader's ticket. You can order for free virtually anything ever published. However, you cannot take it away and have to read it there.

 

[Mojo]

The point being made is Susheel claimed people weren't prepared to do the "hard work" of looking at the threads. But I have made an effort to acquaint myself with the facts. Heck, I even downloaded some e-books at the time. If I had known the Shroud was recently on show, I would have been tempted to go see for myself.

What would that have shown you about its authenticity?

 

[John Jones]

Monza,

- I agree with most of what you said. I'm just more convinced of the match than are you.

- The 700 AD carbon dating of the SoO, in concert with the first reporting of its existence, is evidence against a first century date, and tilts the scale away from a first century conclusion. I would say, however, that -- as evidence against the carbon dating of the SoT -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion. So, the overall effect of matching the two linens would be to move the scale towards a first century conclusion.

- If you can accept that reasoning, I suggest that we scrutinize the argument for a match between the two linens.

That's not reasoning. It's crazy talk.

 

[Kid Eager]

It was more to do with a lack of argument. 1988 was a long time ago. The Vatican should have enabled further state of the art testing. That is suspicious.

I agree that it is suspicious, but not in the way you suggest.

If the Vatican truly thought that the initial test results were erroneous, they'd be onto retesting in a flash. Instead, they are rejecting any further testing, which allows for ongoing speculation and casting of doubt on those results.

Any newer testing that produces results anywhere near the original results will put a stake through the heart of the SOT, and no amount pseudo scientific apologetics would be able to redeem the conclusion.

 

[wollery]

Yes, I have no desire to read the paper. The abstract, summary and De Wesselow's critique was quite enough to give me an understanding of the objections raised.

So, just for the sake of clarity, you are basing your assessment of the C14 dating on an Art Historian's paraphrasing of a reporters half-page summary of a non peer reviewed oral presentation on problems with contamination in very young samples that doesn't implicate the labs involved in the SoT testing.

And you're happy with that?

 

[John Jones]

It was more to do with a lack of argument. 1988 was a long time ago. The Vatican should have enabled further state of the art testing. That is suspicious.

It's not suspicious and it's not evidence of a 2000 year old shroud.

Look at Jabba - nothing will convince him of the shroud's medieval origins. If it were left to him, the testing would continue until one single result affirmed his hopes. There would be nothing left of the shroud. (This would be considered scientific misconduct, btw, if adhered to by scientific investigators)

 

[John Jones]

Yes, I have no desire to read the paper. The abstract, summary and De Wesselow's critique was quite enough to give me an understanding of the objections raised.

Translation: You get more satisfying answers if you don't think about it too much.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So, you go to the ticket counter at Lagaurdia and ask for a ticket to Los Angeles, California. They give you a ticket to El Paso, Texas. You land and insist to everyone that you're in California. They show you a map that indicates that not only are you in Texas but that you're still 761 miles from Los Angeles. You say, "I'm so much closer to Los Angeles than I was that I might as well be in LA. I'm going to check out the Hollywood sign." And then you go wandering around El Paso.

Nominated! Patient Pith.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I wouldn't say cannot, as IMV it has not been tested extensively enough.

Ah, despite the evidence (the representaion does not have the proportions of an actual person, unless you are prepared to explain why Jesus' head was shaped like a chisel, yet no one is said to be said to have mentioned that...), the CIQ must be "authentic". Because faith. Or reasons.

I did make clear my source was De Wesselow. There are > 100 pages of bibliography plus comprehensive index in addition to the 348 page text plus two sections of photos and illustrations.

As physics is not my forte, I felt no desire to read the original conference paper.

I, personally, would not source, or depend upon, a paper I had not read, or could not read. Your doing so is a bad habit often seen in 'Squatchers, Authenticists, and CT-ers. It does you dispraise.

I am a reader at British Library and if something piques my interest, I do indeed go to the reading rooms to order it and look at it for myself.

GoodONya! Check out the anatomy section next time you are there, and look at the anatomy of actual human bodies, particularly about the crown of the head.