• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the bottom panel of the Pray Codex we can see Charles Darwin around the right arm of the woman nearest the angel. Miraculous!!!!!!

I used to be a creationist, but now I'm converted. This is all I need to know to accept that The Theory of Evolution is true!!!! :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...
Click to expand...

It seems to me obvious that you didn't read the posts explaining to you these things.
 
Jabba,

Comment on our comments on the first paper you linked. Until you do that, there is no reason to think you will pay any attention at all to our comments on these.

If you do not do that, or explain why in very convincing terms, then I've had it with you and will engage in this thread only for amusement purposes and to mock you. It's what your behavior deserves.
 
Jabba said:
- But, isn’t it your turn now to provide me with “scientific” papers supportive of the carbon dating results?
Click to expand...
No. The original reports have been presented, and the client (the RCC), who has a known bias against the results of the study, has signed off on them. Thus, the burden of proof for the C14 dating has been met, in spades. The fact that you can't disprove it in no way makes it necessary for us to provide even more proof, and the idea that it does is so patently rediculous that it illustrates the dishonesty of your position.

- Clearly, these are all written by people who favor Shroud authenticity, but that's only natural... If you've done the research, and actually come up with the results that these people have claimed to come up with, you're going to favor authenticity.
Click to expand...
This is simple false, as I've pointed out repeatedly. Even if the C14 dating is wrong, you still haven't established that the shroud is any older than the first appearance of this cloth in a legitimate historical record: the 14th century, which is exactly where the C14 dating puts it. Thus, even if we throw out the data you seem unable to wrap your head around (you STILL haven't given us ANY numbers, which means you don't understand C14 dating), we can still dismiss the claims of authenticity.

It's not enough to simply show that our dating methods are wrong (which you have not yet done); you must also show that YOUR preferred date is RIGHT.
 
Jabba said:
<snippage of self-referential pseudoscience>
Click to expand...
Aaaargh, where to start..........

Lets see shall we.

  1. Both authors are long term shroudies.
  2. Ms. Benford is a nurse with no training in radiocarbon dating or any relevant scientific/analytic field, a well known kook on the subject of "alternative" medicine ("bioenergetic modalities of complementary and alternative healing" anyone?, fringe science (do you agree with her on on spontanous human combustion?). She is not a reliable person. Frankly I don't think she's a rational person.
  3. Mr. Marino (a former Benedictine monk and Catholic Priest) also has no training or qualifications in science and attempts to reconcile his kook alternate medicine views with Jesus's healing powers.
  4. The article was not subject to peer review (despite the claims of yourself and other shroudies); it is what the journal classes as a 'perspective article', i.e. an opinion piece.
  5. The "paper" was submitted to a proper journal (Radiocarbon) but was rejected after peer-review.
  6. Most importantly the science in that article is utter rubbish. Rubbish we've already dealt with. Despite the Benford/Marino claims, the level of contamination to the cloth that would result in an erroneous medieval dating simply isn't possible. Plus, as you've already been shown, the samples were cleaned before analysis and surface contamination was removed. Furthermore:

  • They fail to name their claimed "textile experts"
  • Their alleged experts would only have had access to photographs of the shroud, not personal examination
  • Their "missing corner" is actually a JPEG image artifact caused by excessive magnification of a low resolution image
7. Again the "invisible patch" theory, also promulgated by Benford and Marino has already been dealt with. It's rubbish. More than a month of examination was carried out before the sampled area was selected and this was supervised by, amongst others:​

  • Monsignor Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science)
  • Professor Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology)
  • Professor Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum)
  • Professors Hall and Hedges (Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory)
  • Professor Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory
8. Elsewhere Marino and Benford make other ridiculous, unsupported, claims, such as that an unauthorised radiocarbon dating was performed in 1982 at Caltech by George Rossman and that this supported their claims. This was exposed as a blatant lie.
​
Apologies for the formatting of the list but the forum software doesn't seem to like nested bullet points.


ETA: Jabba, even beyond the discussion on this forum you were already aware that the Marino/Benford article was rubbish, this having been pointed out to you nearly two years ago on another forum. I see this as further evidence that you have no interest in an honest debate.


Belz... said:
"My religious beliefs demand that I doubt the results of the tests." is not reasonable.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Clearly, these are all written by people who favor Shroud authenticity, but that's only natural... If you've done the research, and actually come up with the results that these people have claimed to come up with, you're going to favor authenticity.
Click to expand...

Bravo, Monsieur Jabba, bravo.

A question for the others in this thread. Do you think if Mr. Jabba understood what C14 dating is, he would be better prepared to discuss what is and what isn't scientific evidence in the field of radiometric dating?
 
Jabba said:
- I have to admit that I want the Shroud to be authentic, and can't be impartial -- but for now, I do think that the preponderance of evidence does favor authenticity.
Click to expand...

So you admit you have a strong bias, but you can't see why the last part of your sentence is unreasonable ?
 
Ladewig said:
Bravo, Monsieur Jabba, bravo.

A question for the others in this thread. Do you think if Mr. Jabba understood what C14 dating is, he would be better prepared to discuss what is and what isn't scientific evidence in the field of radiometric dating?
Click to expand...
I think this would be useful for shroudies in general.
 
Jabba said:
Ian,

- It isn't easy...

- I had thought that there were various peer-reviewed, scientific papers (besides the one by Rogers) disputing the carbon dating -- but so far, I have found only one more: http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf
- One problem in identifying such papers is that "peer-reviewed" seems to be a somewhat ambiguous term...
Click to expand...


Firstly - that link does not work for me. But second - Chemistry Today is a trade magazine, it's not a scientific research journal at all.

And thirdly, if that article is by Sue Benford (her name seems to be imbedded in your link), then she is about as far from being a qualified scientist as it's possible to get - afaik, she is a retired nurse. She is also selling a commercial shroud believers book, and she frequents shroud meetings.

To offer me references like that is absurd. And frankly its also becoming offensive - you are treating people here like uneducated idiots.


Jabba said:
- There are, however, all sorts of other, apparently well-researched papers, some written by official "scientists," some not, disputing the carbon dating. I had already supplied you with the latest (that I know of) back on 5/15, post #1223 -- http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud
Here are a few more:
- http://shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf,
- http://shroud.com/vanhels3.htm,
- http://shroud.com/c14debat.htm (actually, an on-line debate)
- http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf

- Clearly, these are all written by people who favor Shroud authenticity, but that's only natural... If you've done the research, and actually come up with the results that these people have claimed to come up with, you're going to favor authenticity.
- You can, of course, find all the carbon-dating disputation papers you want by going to the "flagship" of Shroud websites at http://shroud.com/, and looking under http://shroud.com/papers.htm, and http://shroud.com/library.htm#papers.
Click to expand...


As you well know - the above are all links to a shroud believers website.

Are you really unaware that articles written by religious shroud believers are not remotely independent properly conducted science? Websites like that are the shroud equivalent of UFO believer websites where people write articles solemnly swearing they have experienced alien abduction and have been taken to Mars and operated on aliens!

If any of your articles were ever actually genuine evidence showing the shroud is likely to be real, then why have none of these articles ever been published in a genuine science research journal?

It is not for the want of trying. Because STURP and all the other individuals you have named, such as Barrie Schwortz, Sue Benford, Ray Rogers and all the rest of them, have made constant attempts to submit articles to real science Journals over many decades, and they have all been rejected … they are rejected because they are not remotely genuine science nor genuine evidence of what they claim.


Jabba said:
- But, isn’t it your turn now to provide me with “scientific” papers supportive of the carbon dating results?
Click to expand...


You HAVE been presented with the one and only genuine scientific paper which has ever been published on the shroud. And that is of course the C14 paper in Nature.

There are no other genuine scientific studies of the shroud. Because the Vatican has refused to allow any more genuine scientists to examine it!

Against the C14 paper, you are continually quoting the shroud equivalent of Alien Abduction claims! Your "evidence" is entirely from barking mad religious shroud fanatics who populate pro-shroud sites and go to shroud meetings presenting what is nothing more than religious propaganda attempting to claim physical evidence of Jesus.

So can we finally be clear - you are now admitting that apart from the Ray Rogers paper, you do not know of any other papers published in real science research journals, right?

And further, since Rogers was very far from being an independent investigator where the shroud is concerned, in fact he was the complete opposite of "independent", it means you do not actually have even ONE genuine research paper written by any genuinely independent unbiased scientists at all ... not even one!

Can you please now give a clear admission of that?
 
catsmate1 said:
Aaaargh, where to start..........

Lets see shall we.

  1. Both authors are long term shroudies.
  2. Ms. Benford is a nurse with no training in radiocarbon dating or any relevant scientific/analytic field, a well known kook on the subject of "alternative" medicine ("bioenergetic modalities of complementary and alternative healing" anyone?, fringe science (do you agree with her on on spontanous human combustion?). She is not a reliable person. Frankly I don't think she's a rational person.
  3. Mr. Marino (a former Benedictine monk and Catholic Priest) also has no training or qualifications in science and attempts to reconcile his kook alternate medicine views with Jesus's healing powers.
  4. The article was not subject to peer review (despite the claims of yourself and other shroudies); it is what the journal classes as a 'perspective article', i.e. an opinion piece.
  5. The "paper" was submitted to a proper journal (Radiocarbon) but was rejected after peer-review.
  6. Most importantly the science in that article is utter rubbish. Rubbish we've already dealt with. Despite the Benford/Marino claims, the level of contamination to the cloth that would result in an erroneous medieval dating simply isn't possible. Plus, as you've already been shown, the samples were cleaned before analysis and surface contamination was removed. Furthermore:

  • They fail to name their claimed "textile experts"
  • Their alleged experts would only have had access to photographs of the shroud, not personal examination
  • Their "missing corner" is actually a JPEG image artifact caused by excessive magnification of a low resolution image
7. Again the "invisible patch" theory, also promulgated by Benford and Marino has already been dealt with. It's rubbish. More than a month of examination was carried out before the sampled area was selected and this was supervised by, amongst others:​

  • Monsignor Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science)
  • Professor Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology)
  • Professor Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum)
  • Professors Hall and Hedges (Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory)
  • Professor Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory
8. Elsewhere Marino and Benford make other ridiculous, unsupported, claims, such as that an unauthorised radiocarbon dating was performed in 1982 at Caltech by George Rossman and that this supported their claims. This was exposed as a blatant lie.
​
Apologies for the formatting of the list but the forum software doesn't seem to like nested bullet points.


ETA: Jabba, even beyond the discussion on this forum you were already aware that the Marino/Benford article was rubbish, this having been pointed out to you nearly two years ago on another forum. I see this as further evidence that you have no interest in an honest debate.

Exactly.
Click to expand...



Ahh ... so Jabba's link (which did not work for me) was to the same old article written by Sue Benford and Mr J.Marino? I can barely believe that even Jabba had the cheek to post that load of rubbish yet again!

Jabba - this has become totally absurd - you are clearly either unwilling to, or incapable of, telling the truth about anything in this thread.

I'm sorry to say that. I really am.

Look … people here have been extremely patient with you for nearly 40 pages now. And yet, in response to my 30+ requests for you to provide even one genuine independent scientist who has published in any real science journal saying the C14 is disputed, you have the effrontery to again post a link to the same old paper by Benford and Marino!!! … two individuals who are about as far away as it’s possible to get from being “independent”, who are in no way qualified as scientists in any sense at all, and writing in a trade magazine , not in any genuine research journal … IOW, it fails in every single aspect that I ever asked you for. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- One problem in identifying such papers is that "peer-reviewed" seems to be a somewhat ambiguous term...
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

Peer-review, in terms of academia, means that a paper is read and judged anonymously by at least one expert in the field who does not work in the same institute as the principle author, is not currently conducting research with the principle author, and has not done so for a given period prior to the review process.

In other words, peer-review is judgement by someone demonstrably qualified to judge and disinterested in the outcome.

Only when the peer-reviewer is satisfied will the paper be published.

I suggest you read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Scholarly_peer_review

Note, only read the section on Scholarly peer-review, as this is what we are referring to. The other sections are not relevant.
 
IanS said:
Ahh ... so Jabba's link (which did not work for me) was to the same old article written by Sue Benford and Mr J.Marino? I can barely believe that even Jabba had the cheek to post that load of rubbish yet again!
Click to expand...
This worked OK for me. Yes it's the same old stuff.

IanS said:
Jabba - this has become totally absurd - you are clearly either unwilling to, or incapable of, telling the truth about anything in this thread.

I'm sorry to say that. I really am.

Look … people here have been extremely patient with you for nearly 40 pages now. And yet, in response to my 30+ requests for you to provide even one genuine independent scientist who has published in any real science journal saying the C14 is disputed, you have the effrontery to again post a link to the same old paper by Benford and Marino!!! … two individuals who are about as far away as it’s possible to get from being “independent”, who are in no way qualified as scientists in any sense at all, and writing in a trade magazine , not in any genuine research journal … IOW, it fails in every single aspect that I ever asked you for. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And Jabba knows this and has known this for a long time.
 
IanS said:
You HAVE been presented with the one and only genuine scientific paper which has ever been published on the shroud. And that is of course the C14 paper in Nature.
Click to expand...

Actually, it seems to me that Jabba's question is even worse than that.

Does he really want people to provide a scientific basis for C14 dating? Because that is basically what it sounds to me like it is coming down to.

What else could you give "supportive" of the C dating results?

1) Here is how carbon dating works.
2) Here are the results.

Which one is in question? That carbon dating works? Or that those were the results obtained?

So give Jabba references to all the fundamental papers on the development of carbon dating by AMS. There's your supportive publications.

Heck, let me start the process...

1. Mass spectrometry with accelerators
By Litherland, A. E.; Zhao, X.-L.; Kieser, W. E.
Mass Spectrometry Reviews (2011), 30(6), 1037-1072.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom