Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

-
Also, so far at least, I’ve found 2 peer-reviewed papers for the validity side – one, the original article in Nature; and two, FREER-WATERS, Rachel A. - JULL, A. J. Timothy – Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon Vol 52, No.4, p. 1521-1527, December 2010.

Perhaps you don't want to find them?

-As far as I can tell, the invalidity side also has only two <snip>

Rogers "paper" has been dealt with at more length than it deserves, it's rubbish.
Your second paper it was published in Statistics and Computing in 2010) is actually interesting in it's statistical analysis but not actually relevant to the supposed validity of the shroud. It also oozes proud-shroud bias; phrases such as:

From a scientific point of view, many clues in favour of authenticity have been detected. For example, the formation mechanism of the body images has not yet been scientifically explained; the body image is extremely superficial in the sense that only the external layer of the topmost linen fibres are coloured.

being completely untrue do not reassure me of it's author's neutrality. Further examination of the listed authors is not reassuring.

I’m running into a lot more non-PR articles claiming invalidity, but I’ll skip most of them for now, ‘suspecting’ that you won’t be impressed. <snip>

We've dealt with Marino's nonsense before.

 

[catsmate]

As your post does not address this, your post is mere waffling.

It's also flagrant lies. Here's a fun link to just one of the many articles discussing the validity of radiometric dating. While these may not specifically say "C14 dating of the Shroud of Turin" in the title or abstract, any researcher worth his microscope would realize that limiting one's search in such a manner is just about the dumbest thing you can do.

He's also ignoring all of McCrone's articles, five I believe.

 

[Aepervius]

48 pages.... I lurked in the first 10 or so only.

has any progress been made by Jabba presenting evidence against 14C test or evidence in favor of the supernatural claims ?


or is it the usual hogwash of the shroudies pretending 14C test did not count for a variety of post hoc unsubstantiated reason ?

 

[Mashuna]

48 pages.... I lurked in the first 10 or so only.

has any progress been made by Jabba presenting evidence against 14C test or evidence in favor of the supernatural claims ?


or is it the usual hogwash of the shroudies pretending 14C test did not count for a variety of post hoc unsubstantiated reason ?

The latter, pretty much. I mean, to Jabba, it's clear that the shroud is real, so it only remains to find out how the C14 testing is wrong.

 

[Dinwar]

or is it the usual hogwash of the shroudies pretending 14C test did not count for a variety of post hoc unsubstantiated reason ?

This.

Jabba, ALL of your reasons are post hoc unsubstantiated reasoning--ALL OF THEM, even the ones in the peer reviewed literature. I can say this for two reasons. First off, I've DONE peer-reviewed research, so I know what goes into it and what it ACTUALLY means to be peer reviewed (basically, it means that a few experts thought your idea warranted discussion--they don't even have to think you're right! One reviewer on one of my papers flat-out said he didn't agree with me, but it was still published). So you can't play the "It's in the literature so it's true!" crap irrational people tend to try.

Second, your entire argument boils down to this: there is sufficient contamination to make a 1st century cloth read a 14th century date. Thus, the only thing that you can bring up that actually makes any difference whatever is the amount of contamination necessary to give such a false reading, and evidence that exactly that amount of contamination happened. And it has to be the right amount. See, here's the thing--even if we agree with you that the shroud has been contaminated, it's not necessarily going to go in your favor. All three common isotopes of carbon (C14, C13, and C12) can be added via contamination. Add the right proportions, and you can make a 16th century cloth look like it's from the 14th century. This isn't mere speculation, either--this actually happens (though the specific dates are different) south of the Salton Sea, for example: relatively young sediments have the appearance of great thanks to C12 contamination.Thus, even if you'r right and the labs were so incompetant that they can't figure out to clean the contamination off the threads (something you've never proven), we cannot conclude that the shroud is from the 1st century. Maybe they dropped it in a puddle that was contaminated by oil. It's not impossible--I grew up in the remains of the Great Black Swamp, and heared stories of springs and streams poisoned with what amounts to remarkably pure gasoline (as in, one farmer never purchased gas, he just got a bucketfull whenever he needed it by skimming the stuff off the top of the spring).

This is why courtroom tactics like "establishing reasonable doubt" don't work in science. It's not sufficient to show that the other guy is wrong--you also have to show that you're right. Scientists are trained to look for alternate explanations. Lawyers are trained to score points with a jury. And even if the shroud is so contaminated that C14 dating won't work, that doesn't mean that it's from the 1st century AD. You have to actually provide evidence of that, which you've thus far utterly failed to do, even when I tell you what to look for.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now, over at his own forum, Jabba is complaining that we are insulting him. I admit to becoming more and more sarcastic, but it seems he misses how insulting it is that he ignores replies, keeps rehashing old arguments, ad infinitum.

Jabba, I shall not bother you further at your forum. Nothing goes on there anyway, but do drop me a line if you ever have something new.

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Now, over at his own forum, Jabba is complaining that we are insulting him. I admit to becoming more and more sarcastic, but it seems he misses how insulting it is that he ignores replies, keeps rehashing old arguments, ad infinitum.

Jabba, I shall not bother you further at your forum. Nothing goes on there anyway, but do drop me a line if you ever have something new.

Hans

Can you have a one man forum? He seems to be the only one who posts there.

 

[davefoc]

Let me start with an apology. I have only read through the last several pages of this thread plus probably a few more as I've lurked in it from time to time. So my questions may have been covered thoroughly already, but perhaps somebody could provide a summary of the general consensus view?

And a caveat: I think it is wildly unlikely that the shroud dates from the first century and even if it did I think it is wildly unlikely that the shroud was an actual burial cloth and not just a piece of purposely built art.

1. What is the evidence that the kind of linen and the herringbone pattern was available in the first century Palestine area? I was surprised that I couldn't find much on this issue, but I would have thought that a cloth of 14th century European origin would have been a lot different than a cloth of first century Palestinian origin.

An article with limited information about this:
http://news.discovery.com/history/jesus-era-burial-shroud-casts-doubt-on-turin-shroud.html

2. What is the best theory today about the material that the image consists of? Is this consistent or inconsistent with what McCrone found?

3. According to some analysis the head is supposed to be disproportionately small with respect to the size of the body. Is this accepted by shroud believers? If so what is the explanation for this discrepancy?

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article815.html

4. Has there been any attempt to locate the area of origin with strontium isotope analysis? If there hasn't, would this be an appropriate technique to apply to something like a piece of cloth?

A comment:
The Wikipedia article seems to grossly distort the shroud debate, giving vastly too much weight to fringe theories.

 

[pakeha]

Quite right, Jabba, my mistake.

The pdf is from this site:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/statistics/research/Home.aspx

June 19, 2010
This is the conclusion from an eighteen-page paper, “Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Partially Labelled Regressors and the Design of Experiments,” co-authored by Marco Riani, Anthony C. Atkinson, Giulio Fanti and Fabio Crosilla and recently published on the website of the London School of Economics:

This quote, by the way, is from
http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2010/06/

I don't see any activity at the bothsides forum at all.
Where are these complaints?

 

[pakeha]

Ah, yes.
I've seen the complaints at the other forum.
No worries, I've apologised for any rudeness on my part.

Now.
About the C14 dating?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating & Peer Reviewed

Me:
- http://www2.lse.ac.uk/statistics/res...C04May2010.pdf. (Here, I’ve temporarily lost the citation for the peer-reviewed journal in which this paper was very recently (last month?) published, but I’m pretty sure that the journal was Statistics.

Pakeha:
...It was 'published' in May of 2010.
It says so at the beginning of the paper, which was presented here:
http://meetings.sis-statistica.org/i...is2010/sis2010...

Me:
- I wasn't able to find such a paper at that site...

Quite right, Jabba, my mistake.

The pdf is from this site:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/statistics/research/Home.aspx

Pakeha,
- Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Is this where the peer-reviewed version of the paper was published?
- If so, please be more specific as to how to confirm it. I thought that the paper I offered was peer-reviewed only very recently.
--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh stop it.

 

[Dinwar]

Ah, yes.
I've seen the complaints at the other forum.
No worries, I've apologised for any rudeness on my part.

I do not. Dr. Steven Dutch said it best:

Every so often I get e-mails from people complaining I don't treat these topics or their believers with respect.
There is nothing in crank movements worthy of respect.
First of all, cranks don't treat the orthodox with respect. They can accuse science of willfully neglecting or falsifying evidence. They can accuse their own nation of bringing down skyscrapers and causing thousands of deaths, or deliberately breaching levees to flood New Orleans, but aim a little critical language at them, and they howl about being "disrespected." Aww, poo' baby.
They're right. I do disrespect them.
Then there's the sheer waste of it all. Cities are increasingly privatizing their public libraries, but there always seems to be money to support crackpot movements. We can't drum up enthusiasm for space travel but we can hold conventions as Roswell to commemorate UFO's. These people are parasites. They do nothing to advance real learning in our society and drain resources into crank movements that will never benefit anyone except charlatans.
Respect? Take it to someone who cares.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm

The reason I keep harping on the contamination issue is that in order for Jabba to even understand the issues involved, much less be able to offer an intelligent contribution to the conversation, he MUST understand the basic concepts. I'm not even talking calibration or mixing theory; I'm just talking the simple geometric progression that underlies radiometric dating. Until he can do that he's nothing but yet another person too arrogantly lazy to learn even the simplest parts of a theory, yet assuming he's better-qualified to critique it than people who have devoted their lives to it. I've actually gone through the process of learning radiometric dating methods. Watched a good friend have a minor breakdown while he did so (trust me, asking for the amount of contamination is NOTHING compared to some of the problems isotopic geochemists get into on a routine basis) (the friend's fine now, by the way--just had to go nuts for about ten minutes). I would never assume that I know as much as the guys in the C14 labs! Particularly not if I couldn't tell them what I'm even looking for!!

When Jabba appologizes for his continued disrespect of an entire field of geology and chemistry, I'll appologize for any minor rudeness on my part. Until then, far as I'm concerned it's all well-earned.

 

[Jabba]

Effective Discussion

Dinwar,

- Here’s what I think.
1) Unless we humans figure out a way to effectively discuss controversial issues with those with whom we disagree, the world “as we know it” is not going to last much longer.
2) One critical step -- probably the FIRST -- towards developing effective discussion is for the two sides to address each other respectfully (even when they actually think poorly of each other’s intelligence and/or motivation).

- I came here to see if we could develop some effective discussion.

--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

I am completely with Dinwar on the respect issue.

Dinwar,

- Here’s what I think.
1) Unless we humans figure out a way to effectively discuss controversial issues with those with whom we disagree, the world “as we know it” is not going to last much longer.

Hogwash (addressed at your statement; not at you). The world as we know it has been changing since we have known it, and the level of civility between those who disagree has either stayed the same or gone down.

2) One critical step -- probably the FIRST -- towards developing effective discussion is for the two sides to address each other respectfully (even when they actually think poorly of each other’s intelligence and/or motivation).

No. The first and most important critical step to effective discussion is effective learning, followed closely by the eager examination of the other side's position. You have demonstrably failed at both; at the second you have continually and willfully avoided any examination of Dinwar's points which are by far the most important to the entire debate.

- I came here to see if we could develop some effective discussion.

--- Jabba

No, you did not; at least your actions are not consistent with that claim. You actions are, instead, consistent with you coming here to show us your unresearched belief poorly buttressed with your shoddily crafted "papers" to which you have linked. You have steadfastly refused to address the points raised when I and others have actually read your links. You have steadfastly refused to do what Dinwar has stated.

You are here to preach, not discuss, and you are shocked that we have not been so gullible as to fall for it. You call that disrespect on our part. It is rather the greatest of insults on yours.


--- NotJabba

 

[Mashuna]

One critical step -- probably the FIRST -- towards developing effective discussion is for the two sides to address each other respectfully.

You seem to have confused politeness with respect. Your posts are polite, but they are not respectful.

 

[Olowkow]

If my belief in the FSM is not respected, the world as we know it will end some day.

Shroud of Napkin

Whoops! Maybe you were looking for Shroud of Turing?
The first photo of the Shroud of Napkin, taken in 2005.


The Shroud of Napkin (or Napkin Shroud) is a paper napkin bearing the image of a being who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with boiling pasta. It is presently kept in a secret location. Some believe it is the paper that covered the Flying Spaghetti Monster when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was somehow recorded on its fibers at or near the time of his imputed resurrection. Skeptics contend the shroud is a contemporary hoax or forgery. It is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, true believers, historians and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created.

 

[Craig B]

Dinwar,

- Here’s what I think.
1) Unless we humans figure out a way to effectively discuss controversial issues with those with whom we disagree, the world “as we know it” is not going to last much longer.

That may well be, Jabba. But the date of manufacture of the Shroud is not an issue that can be resolved through discussion, however respectful. It has already been resolved by C14 testing. That is, by information. Unless you can challenge the validity of the test or its results, with scientific rigour equal to or greater than that with which the tests were made, and the results obtained, then there is nothing to be discussed. And if the world "as we know it" is to come to an end on that account, then come to an end it must, and that's that.

 

[Dinwar]

1) Unless we humans figure out a way to effectively discuss controversial issues with those with whom we disagree, the world “as we know it” is not going to last much longer.

True. However, the way forward isn't for me to treat someone who refuses to even identify what their ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges on as an expert. The way forward is for you to gain an understanding of the system in quesiton. I've referenced a few good isotopic geochemistry books in this thread, and others have provided free online texts to this end.

The solution to discussing controversial issues isn't to treat everry viewpoint as if they're all equally valid. You've failed, for more than 10 pages, to provide any proof that you understand even the most basic aspects of radiometric dating; thus, your opinion is irrelevent.

2) One critical step -- probably the FIRST -- towards developing effective discussion is for the two sides to address each other respectfully (even when they actually think poorly of each other’s intelligence and/or motivation).

I have addressed you respectfully. You've made a very bold statement that flagrantly insuluts a whole swath of my peers. I've shown you the respect of asking for your evidence for this--starting with the most fundamental question I can ask, how much contamination we should be looking for. You refused--and continue to refuse--to provide that information. You can dress your posts up with all the fancy verbage and weird editing you want, the simple fact remains that you expect to be taken more seriously than experts when you CAN'T EVEN IDENTIFY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. That is profoundly disrespectful.

- I came here to see if we could develop some effective discussion.

Of course we can--and I'm not the one keeping us from doing so. You propose that sufficient contamination is present on the shroud to yield an error of 1300 years in the C14 dating. Fine. Tell us how much contamination that is. Once you do that, we can move forward. Until we do that, we can't. It's as simple as that. ANYTHING other than that number--any arguments, any equivocation, any attempts to tell me how to discuss this with you, ANYTHING--can only be yet more of your continued attempts to dodge the issues. At this point I'm assuming you can't address this basic concept. If you surprise me, and actually provide the numbers, fantastic. We can then begin to ask where that contamination could come from. Until you do, you're preventing any rational discussion of these very scientific issues, in favor of a type of discussion that permits you to move the goal posts all over the place and claim anything that impacts the C14 dating at all, to any degree, is proof that you're right. No. Give us the numbers, or admit that you don't know enough about C14 dating to discuss it.

 

[Tinyal]

That may well be, Jabba. But the date of manufacture of the Shroud is not an issue that can be resolved through discussion, however respectful. It has already been resolved by C14 testing.

The part of Craig's post bolded above is - and has been - the clincher for me, ever since the C14 results were published. Jabba's continuial refusal to accept reality all throughout this thread is (for me) exactly the same thing I get when I end up in discussions with believers/fundamentalists - their minds simply refuse to accept evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

I understand this, of course - when someone's entire worldview, tied together with nothing but hope and fear, is threatened by reality (ie, data), it can be a very, very painful process to face the truth that their entire life (or however long they've been 'believers' - whether god believers, or shroud believers, or mormon, or whatever) has been a fantasy, a lie, a facade.

I find the same fear-based responses occur when I discuss my atheism with AA members - they simply refuse to admit (they apparantly cannot admit) that I was able to get sober - and stay sober for 20+ years - without god in my life. They cannot - because if they did, it would mean they wasted years of their life they can never get back.

Even though I understand what's going on, I have no sympathy for people who once (or twice, or thirty times) presented with solid data, crawl back into a fear-based belief. In my view, such people are cowards, unwilling to face reality.

Perhaps they were born this way, perhaps not. But after some slack/time has passed, and they've had a chance to evaluate the data (whatever data we're talking about, religious or otherwise), and they still cling to their unsupported beliefs - at that point, I'm done with them.

Life is too short to waste it on (among other things) trying to convince cowards to face reality.