Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pakeha]

- I'm not suggesting that the Church pressured the scientists into faking the date. I'm suggesting that 1) the Church wasn't all that anxious to have the Shroud dated, 2) they certainly didn't want much more of the Shroud to be sacrificed. 3) This attitude caused the Church to reject the protocols -- and 4) the labs -- wanting desperately to be involved -- 4) the labs -- wanting desperately to be involved -- 5) to agree not to put their objections to the Church's decision in the official documents.
- I suspect that 1-4 were all true. #5 isn't quite as obvious to me -- but that's mostly because of the implied requirement made by the church that the labs not express their dissatisfaction in the official documents...
- Obviously, I could be wrong, but neither I nor my suggestions are stupid.
--- Jabba

Hi, Jabba!
Let's take your 5 points one by one.

1) the Church wasn't all that anxious to have the Shroud dated

Why ever not? The TS has been a bone of contention for centuries- high time to clear out fakery. Remember the Holy Prepuce?

2) they certainly didn't want much more of the Shroud to be sacrificed.

Why ever not? You're familiar with the tremendous efforts made to save the TS from further detoriation, of course. Drastic cutting to the TS was done, with the Vatican's blessing.

3) This attitude caused the Church to reject the protocols

Could you document that, please?

4) the labs -- wanting desperately to be involved --

Desperately?

5) to agree not to put their objections to the Church's decision in the official documents.

Please document this.


Jabba, in any case numbering doesn't hide that fact you've structured 2 sentences to look as though you are making 5 points.

Just look:

The Church wasn't all that anxious to have the Shroud dated and they certainly didn't want much more of the Shroud to be sacrificed. This attitude caused the Church to reject the protocols and the labs, wanting desperately to be involved, agree not to put their objections to the Church's decision in the official documents.

What would your judge friend say to such a claim?

 

[catsmate]

- I'm not suggesting that the Church pressured the scientists into faking the date. I'm suggesting that 1) the Church wasn't all that anxious to have the Shroud dated, 2) they certainly didn't want much more of the Shroud to be sacrificed. 3) This attitude caused the Church to reject the protocols -- and 4) the labs -- wanting desperately to be involved -- 5) to agree not to put their objections to the Church's decision in the official documents.
- I suspect that 1-4 were all true. #5 isn't quite as obvious to me -- but that's mostly because of the implied requirement made by the church that the labs not express their dissatisfaction in the official documents...
- Obviously, I could be wrong, but neither I nor my suggestions are stupid.
--- Jabba

Wil you be supplying evidence for these beliefs of yours or are we supposed to accept your unsupported opinions?
And yes, actually your suggestions are stupid for the reasons covered previously in this thread.

 

[Jabba]

If anyone posts anything interesting over there that has not been discussed to death here already, please let us know. Before suggesting we go there, though, please consult the fable of the boy who cried wolf.

Thank you,
Ward

Ward,
- I'm the last person to judge what hasn't been discussed to death here already, but personally, I liked the following.
- Clearly, this stuff has been discussed already to some extent, but I would argue that it hasn't been discussed nearly enough. There are a lot of credible reasons for doubting the validity of the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

- Mostly, at this point, I just want to show that the carbon dating results on the Shroud simply do not deserve your current level of loyalty. I contend that there are significant reasons to question the validity of those results (certainly more than “reasonable doubt”) – some of the reasons being “direct,” and some being “indirect.” By direct, I’m referring to the numerous “chinks” in the overall process itself (in this case). By “indirect,” I’m referring to other relevant scientific and historical evidence (supporting an earlier date).

- For one thing, in researching the Shroud over the years (not withstanding my memory problem), I’ve been constantly surprised by the level of emotionality that I’ve perceived from the involved scientists – on both sides… In other words, we need to take these “scientific” opinions with a grain of salt.

- And, as long as you agree that there is at least reasonable doubt in the “direct” evidence re the carbon dating (reasonable doubt as to its validity), the indirect evidence deserves its day in court…

- The following — obviously written by an Italian Shroudie and translated by Google – gives a relatively recent, and pretty good, summary of the problems with the overall process itself.

- Overall, it’s a lot to read, but if you start at “Was the analysed sample representative of the whole cloth?” on page 22, and read through the Conclusion, it should go pretty fast. The last page or two is filled up with a bibliography, and each page in between is halfway devoted to references.

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

 

[pakeha]

I read your link, Jabba, and a more twisted bit of reasoning I've never read.
In effect-
"Subsequently, however, Gove believes that the different cleaning methods used did remove all contamination, which, in order to move the date from the first tofourteenth century, would represent 64% of the sample"

The rest was insinuation and allegation.
Where was this paper presented, by the way?

 

[Ladewig]

Ward,
- I'm the last person to judge what hasn't been discussed to death here already, but personally, I liked the following.
- Clearly, this stuff has been discussed already to some extent, but I would argue that it hasn't been discussed nearly enough. There are a lot of credible reasons for doubting the validity of the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

- Mostly, at this point, I just want to show that the carbon dating results on the Shroud simply do not deserve your current level of loyalty. I contend that there are significant reasons to question the validity of those results (certainly more than “reasonable doubt”) – some of the reasons being “direct,” and some being “indirect.” By direct, I’m referring to the numerous “chinks” in the overall process itself (in this case). By “indirect,” I’m referring to other relevant scientific and historical evidence (supporting an earlier date).

- For one thing, in researching the Shroud over the years (not withstanding my memory problem), I’ve been constantly surprised by the level of emotionality that I’ve perceived from the involved scientists – on both sides… In other words, we need to take these “scientific” opinions with a grain of salt.

- And, as long as you agree that there is at least reasonable doubt in the “direct” evidence re the carbon dating (reasonable doubt as to its validity), the indirect evidence deserves its day in court…

- The following — obviously written by an Italian Shroudie and translated by Google – gives a relatively recent, and pretty good, summary of the problems with the overall process itself.

- Overall, it’s a lot to read, but if you start at “Was the analysed sample representative of the whole cloth?” on page 22, and read through the Conclusion, it should go pretty fast. The last page or two is filled up with a bibliography, and each page in between is halfway devoted to references.

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

You know what would be awesome: If any of the complaints about patchiness came before the lab results were announced. The cutting was in May. The test results came out in August.

As for the reason that this thread sounds emotional is that when you present what you consider is evidence, we carefully explain
that it does not meet the minimum standards for evidence
OR that even if your evidence is true then it would not change anything,
OR that if your evidence is true then we have to assume world-renowned, scholars and laboratories are so grossly incompetent that their advanced academic degrees and certifications would be revoked,¹AND when faced with these explanations you go back to square one and start the whole process over again with the ideas that have already been discredited.

...................
[1] and before you accuse this claim to be a fallacious false-appeal to authority ("scientists are never wrong") let me point out that I am not claiming that these people can never be wrong - I am pointing out that your assertions require things such as an expert in ancient textiles being so moronic as to not examine both sides of a cloth.

 

[catsmate]

- Mostly, at this point, I just want to show that the carbon dating results on the Shroud simply do not deserve your current level of loyalty.

We are "loyal" to the facts and evidence. They stand.

I contend that there are significant reasons to question the validity of those results (certainly more than “reasonable doubt”) –

No. You've failed to show any evidence to doubt the validity of the radiocarbon dating; no has any other shroudie.

some of the reasons being “direct,” and some being “indirect.” By direct, I’m referring to the numerous “chinks” in the overall process itself (in this case). By “indirect,” I’m referring to other relevant scientific and historical evidence (supporting an earlier date).

You've failed to show any evidence to doubt the validity of the radiocarbon dating. Your "indirect proofs" are worthless until you've done so.
Further these supposed proofs are tenuous to the point of non-existence.
Of couse apart from the radiocarbon dating there are all the other reasons we've repeatedly listed to accept the reality that the shroud was created ~1350.

For one thing, in researching the Shroud over the years (not withstanding my memory problem), I’ve been constantly surprised by the level of emotionality that I’ve perceived from the involved scientists – on both sides…

You're surprised that people object to having their work questioned, denigrated and lied about by unqualified god botherers with an agenda (and often more) to peddle?
In this thread you've made unsubstantiated and slanderous allegations about those who carried out the radiocarbon dating of the shroud and you're surprised people object to this?

In other words, we need to take these “scientific” opinions with a grain of salt.

Rubbish. Those "opinions" as you describe them are supported by facts and evidence. Yours are not.

And, as long as you agree that there is at least reasonable doubt in the “direct” evidence re the carbon dating (reasonable doubt as to its validity), the indirect evidence deserves its day in court…

First establish the basis for such doubt. With evidence not just vague, unsupported allegations and opinions.

The following — obviously written by an Italian Shroudie and translated by Google – gives a relatively recent, and pretty good, summary of the problems with the overall process itself.

- Overall, it’s a lot to read, but if you start at “Was the analysed sample representative of the whole cloth?” on page 22, and read through the Conclusion, it should go pretty fast. The last page or two is filled up with a bibliography, and each page in between is halfway devoted to references.

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

No. I'm not wasting any more of my time doing your work for you; I'm certainly not wading through dozens of pages of poorly translated Italian.
You claim there are reasons to doubt the validity of the radiocarbon dating but nothing you've posted so far supports this. Provide your evidence.

 

[IanS]

- I'm not suggesting that the Church pressured the scientists into faking the date. I'm suggesting that 1) the Church wasn't all that anxious to have the Shroud dated, 2) they certainly didn't want much more of the Shroud to be sacrificed. 3) This attitude caused the Church to reject the protocols -- and 4) the labs -- wanting desperately to be involved -- 5) to agree not to put their objections to the Church's decision in the official documents.
- I suspect that 1-4 were all true. #5 isn't quite as obvious to me -- but that's mostly because of the implied requirement made by the church that the labs not express their dissatisfaction in the official documents...
- Obviously, I could be wrong, but neither I nor my suggestions are stupid.
--- Jabba

re "#1" - it was up to the church whether it wanted to agree to C14 dating or not. It was their decision entirely. If the church did not want it done, then why was it ever done?

re. "#2" - if the church objected to the 7 cm being removed for sampling, then why did the church agree to it?

re. "#3" - afaik, the church never gave it's reasons for refusing to appoint 6 labs to test samples. But in the end 3 labs was more than sufficient, because all three labs got consistent and near identical results on all their test runs, and the confidence levels from that are given in the stats analysis.

re. "#4" - the only reason the labs wanted to be involved is that they had spent 10 years being messed around by the Milan keepers of the shroud like Gonella ... they probably thought they ought to at least test the thing after all that time and messing around. If it were not a religious artefact and had not been something presided over by devious religious officials like Gonella, any ordinary sample would have probably been agreed & tested from start to finish the same week!

re. "#5" - I don't expect the appointed labs thought it was worth more years of argument about what the Vatican would and would not allow - it was the Vatican that owned the shroud, and they could decide whatever they wanted about it. It was not a decision the science labs could control ... they explained why it was statistically safer to have 6 labs with shroud samples, but the Vatican's religious officials decided otherwise ... that was up to them.

None of which has anything at all to do with the measured results - the results clearly showed the shroud to be circa 1260-1390AD. End of story.

There’s nothing left here to argue about … you simply have no evidence at all. But in contrast to your total lack of any evidence, the C14 is unarguably clear and direct evidence of scientifically accurate dating.

 

[catsmate]

I read your link, Jabba, and a more twisted bit of reasoning I've never read.
In effect-
"Subsequently, however, Gove believes that the different cleaning methods used did remove all contamination, which, in order to move the date from the first tofourteenth century, would represent 64% of the sample"

The rest was insinuation and allegation.
Where was this paper presented, by the way?

You're a better man than I to wade through that rubbish. Have a muffin.

 

[pakeha]

Mmmm. Muffin!
Like. Thanks!

The wierdest part of that paper was the tenor of it- it reminded me of AiG.

edited to add.
Ah I've found where that paper came from.
Rather sly of you not to say, Jabba!

http://www.hazteoir.org/noticia/44237-valencia-28-30-abril-i-congreso-internacional-sabana-santa
http://sindone2012.es/programa-eventos-congreso-sindone-2012.php

Hardly an unbiased, peer-reviewed source.
But you did the same before, didn't you- when you quoted sources without saying they were obituaries.

 

[Jabba]

Reasonable doubt?

- I guess that you guys don't see reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

"If during the preparation of the samples the whole foreign material is not removed, we can easily incur in [sic] significant errors in dating."

First, such a failure to remove foreign material would have to be perpetrated by multiple scientists at three independent labs.

Second, since the allegation is that the foreign material has been gathered over many centuries, the non-removed material would have to miraculously be identical from sample to sample; in other words, since all the labs dated the samples the same, each one would have to have cleaned them precisely so that only materials from that time period were left.

Third, no where does the linked paper show that the non-removal actually occurred. It merely alleges that it might have and then acts as if the allegation itself is proof that it did. (Or, as Jabba would say, the author acts as if the allegation itself is sufficient reason to doubt that it didn't happen.)

From the Shroud samples taken by STURP with sticky tapes in 1978, nineteen fibers were extracted, representative of the different zones of the shroud: non-image, waterstain, scorches, image, backing cloth, nad serum. These were compared with other fifteen fibers taken from three threads of the radiocarbon sample. The patterns obtained show differences in chemical composition, further confirmed by peak frequency analysis.

First, the reference for this is to Symposium papers as presented in a book; apparently no paper discussing this analysis was ever published.

Second, the author is implying that fibers gathered with sticky tape are less likely to be contaminated with foreign material than an actual sample cut and cleaned by three independent labs specializing in such a procedure.

Third, note the tricky placement and wording. In the previous paragraph the author discusses foreign material as contaminating the C14 process, and this paragraph begins as if demonstrating that there is evidence of just such contamination. But it ends with something different: different chemical compositions of threads. And it does so without mentioning how different or alike were the chemical compositions of the 19 fibers gathered with sticky tape.

And that is the extent of the discussion on contamination by foreign material. It amounts to this, and I am not being facetious:

If the experts did everything wrong and if the three independent labs happened to do everything wrong in exactly the same way and if in doing everything wrong in the same way they ended up with the same contaminants on each sample, then maybe we can say the C14 isn't trustworthy.

That, Jabba, is your evidence against the C14. It's crap. Your doubting of the C14 is founded on quicksand, and your reasoning in support of authenticity is entirely lacking.

 

[Garrette]

- I guess that you guys don't see reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

When your "evidence" is stacked against the C14 evidence, the only doubt is about your objectivity.

 

[pgwenthold]

OR that if your evidence is true then we have to assume world-renowned, scholars and laboratories are so grossly incompetent that their advanced academic degrees and certifications would be revoked,¹.

Seriously, if the world-renowned scholars and laboratories were as incompetent as would need to be to miss something so obvious, they would have never become world-renowned in the first place.

 

[Garrette]

I find this whole episode indicative of what I have found in most woo beliefs, whether they are religious or not:

Intentional deception happens primarily at the level of those who write the books and the papers and at the level of those who -- in the case of evangelical religion -- lead their flocks.

People like Jabba aren't intentionally deceptive; they believe. The problem is that they have chosen to believe liars, and they have never learned to actually examine what is presented.

Jabba's link is a case in point; it falls apart under a minimum of scrutiny, but Jabba never applied that scrutiny because he has never felt the need. The idea that it could be fabrications and lies never occurred to him.

 

[catsmate]

Mmmm. Muffin!
Like. Thanks!

Quintuple choc......

The wierdest part of that paper was the tenor of it- it reminded me of AiG.

That's not unexpected; most woo papers are similar in style whether they're anti-evolution, YEC, Bigfoot, cold fusion, UFO et cetera. A patina of the scientific method over a lot of biases, fallacies and nonsense.

Ah I've found where that paper came from.
Rather sly of you not to say, Jabba!

http://www.hazteoir.org/noticia/44237-valencia-28-30-abril-i-congreso-internacional-sabana-santa
http://sindone2012.es/programa-eventos-congreso-sindone-2012.php

Hardly an unbiased, peer-reviewed source.

Well given that to real science the shroud dating is a dead issue it's not that surprising.

But you did the same before, didn't you- when you quoted sources without saying they were obituaries.

- I guess that you guys don't see reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

No. But then most of us understand the scientific method and the concept of "reasonable doubt" rather better than you seem to.

When your "evidence" is stacked against the C14 evidence, the only doubt is about your objectivity.

Indeed.

 

[pakeha]

- I guess that you guys don't see reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

Oh, Jabba.
You talk about taking baby steps and thoroughly discussing each point.
Then you post up a '5 point' theory about a Vatican plot to skew the dating tests.
Even before you refute the comments presented, you cite this presentation from a CES convention and you react with surprise we don't see grounds for 'reasonable doubt' in it?
Come on, Jabba.

Nothing in that presentation rebuts the carbon 14 dating, you know.
It's nicely dressed up but really, Jabba, it's just a rehash of stuff we've already discussed here.

...Jabba's link is a case in point; it falls apart under a minimum of scrutiny, but Jabba never applied that scrutiny because he has never felt the need. The idea that it could be fabrications and lies never occurred to him.

That.

 

[Dinwar]

- I guess that you guys don't see reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

...and now you're back to "CSI: Archeology".

SCIENCE. IS. NOT. LAW.

Please explain what part of that is giving you difficulty.

- Mostly, at this point, I just want to show that the carbon dating results on the Shroud simply do not deserve your current level of loyalty.

See, here's why you annoy me: I've explained to you exactly how to refute the carbon dating. If you read my posts, I give you all the information you need to turn my arguments into mush. Yet you simply refuse to do so. At this point, we can either assume that you can't, or that you can't even understand the concept--neither of which inspires much confidence in your conclusions.

- For one thing, in researching the Shroud over the years (not withstanding my memory problem), I’ve been constantly surprised by the level of emotionality that I’ve perceived from the involved scientists – on both sides… In other words, we need to take these “scientific” opinions with a grain of salt.

It would be unreasonable to expect scientists to not get upset with you at this point, Jabba. Simply put, you're not an honest critic of the information presented. You demonstrably don't understand the issues involved, refuse to address the points raised by people here who do, ignore anything that you can't address, attempt to force an entirely inappropriate system of discussion down our collective gullets in an attempt to control the conversation unilaterally--then have the naked audacity to use the fact that we get mildly annoyed as proof that we're wrong! Not saying "...and therefore you're wrong"; rather, I'm saying that all of those (demonstrably true) statements are just cause for someone who's spent their entire life learning this information to get mildly annoyed with you.

Furthermore, emotions are IRRELEVANT to scientific discussions. They don't matter-AT ALL. I can be so mad I chuck a rock hammer at someone--but as long as my data is good, and my conclusions logically flow from the data, I'm right. You're attempting character assassination, in yet another attempt to shoehorn a scientific discussion into your favorite courtroom drama.

- And, as long as you agree that there is at least reasonable doubt in the “direct” evidence re the carbon dating (reasonable doubt as to its validity), the indirect evidence deserves its day in court…

This is why your attempts to shoehorn a scientific discussion into courtroom tactics fails: the concept of a "reasonable doubt" doesn't mean the same thing in both arenas. In a courtroom I suppose you might be able to get away with garbage like postulating a hypothetical and demanding we take it seriously. In science, however, ALL statements MUST be backed up by independently verifiable (at least in theory) evidence prior to them even being considered. That means that if you want to speculate about the Vatican putting pressure on labs, or labs being desperate for this job, or...well, let's leave it simple and say ANYTHING AT ALL, you need to first present evidence that we can examine critically. You've done that exceedingly rarely in this thread, and when you have it's been demonstrated to be hogwash (as pakeha has done). Thus, of your arguments most are inadmissible to begin with and the rest are simply wrong. So no, there's no reasonable doubt.

What you have is UNreasonable doubt. That's a whole different thing.

In case the issue here is that you're not familiar with science, but only with legal tactics (something I highly doubt, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, again), here's a brief primer.

In fact, just read any 10 random articles on this page. I don't necessarily agree with them all, but they will certainly show you how a scientist thinks, and why scientists find your tactics annoying.

 

[Ladewig]

- I guess that you guys don't see reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

And I guess you don't see any reasonable doubt on the claim that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ. You appear to believe, please correct me if I am wrong, that the position of doubting the authenticity of the Shroud is an unreasonable position.

 

[Ladewig]

... when you present what you consider is evidence, we carefully explain
That it does not meet the minimum standards for evidence
OR
That even if your evidence were true then it would not change anything,
OR
That if your evidence is true then we have to assume world-renowned scholars and laboratories are so grossly incompetent that their advanced academic degrees and certifications would be revoked,
AND
when faced with these explanations you go back to square one and start the whole process over again with the ideas that have already been discredited.

[aside] you are never going to hit the 15k mark unless you start quoting your own posts[/aside]

If anyone in this thread thinks that this summary mischaracterizes the thread in any way, please say so, so that I can correct it.

 

[pakeha]

^
I'm looking forward to reading the next 15k!

Thanks for the link, Dinwar!
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm

I'm still puzzled as to why Jabba accepts presentations from the CES as evidence.
Could it be he's being 'fed' these links and doesn't read them with a critical eye?