Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,363
I like this
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
I like this
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I haven't read all the posts that happened since I went AWOL; if this has been addressed, please forgive me.
The reason I mentioned these, Jabba, is that you're confused about what a "basic disagreement re the controversial issue" actually IS. Those works deal with radiometric dating. You're rejecting the principles outlined in those books. If you accept them, you must necessarily either 1) have actual evidence for the amount of contamination on the shroud, or 2) accept that the shroud is too young to be Jesus' burial cloth. The fact that you refuse to do either suggests that you disagree with these.
Let me make it simple for you: those books are the fundamentals of radiometric dating. Those ARE THE BASIC ISSUES you're disagreeing with. And the fact that you don't realize that means you don't actually know anything about the system you want to discuss.
By the way: What amount of contamination is necessary to make a 1st century cloth read as though it were from the 14th century? Until you give us that number, NOTHING you say--and I mean NOTHING, not a single word, not a single LETTER--means anything. That number is your target, and if you can't figure out what your target is you by definition cannot tell if you'v ehit it.
Hardly. I've given Jabba ample opportunity to show that he has any clue what he's talking about. He's failed utterly to do so. And while failing to do so, he's insulted a rather large number of my peers, and me--he's insulted EVERYONE who has done radiometric dating. He's refused to acknowledge evidence, he's continuously re-used discredited sources, and his research methodology would make your average conspiracy theorist look like a legitimate researcher. The fact that we're still talking to him is more respect than his posts thus far deserve.davefoc View Post said:
Besides, he can solve the problem any time he wants--all he has to do is simple algebra, providing the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth look like it's from the 14th century. I'm being VERY generous here--I'm not asking him to do the mixing equations (something I've had to do), for example. Yet he's been unable or unwilling to produce that number for half a hundred pages. Again, that number is what this entire discussion is about--if there's not that much contamination, the discussion is 100% completely well and truly over. If there's any less contamination than that, it doesn't matter when the shroud was made--it still can't be Jesus' burial cloth. Period. End of story. The only question remaining would be "When WAS it made?" Jabba's entire argument hinges on a number HE CANNOT PROVIDE. If this were a science conference he'd be laughed out of the auditorium.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating
1. Here’s how I see it.
1.1. So far, I’ve presented all sorts of EVIDENCE for the possibility -- even probability -- that the carbon dating was flawed.
1.2. You guys, “to a man” – and, in every instance I can remember – just claim that what I call “evidence” is rubbish and has been convincingly (and, in many cases, often) refuted in the past.
1.3. I have never agreed to any of that…
1.4. You also claim that what I call “evidence” is neither scientific nor independent, and consequently of no interest.
1.5. I have never agreed to that either…
1.6. But then, when I ask for specifics about your claims above, you’re basically mum -- except to say that
1.6.1. the specifics have been laid out many times in the past -- and, at least imply, that
1.6.2. It’s up to me to track them down.
1.7. Consequently, my aim here is to
1.7.1. slow down,
1.7.2. present specific claims of evidence argued by researchers, and
1.7.3. Ask for your specific reasons for believing that they do not constitute valid evidence – one claim of evidence at a time.
2. And OK, I won’t ask you to go to my site in order to see the evidence. Instead, I’ll just point you to specific claims made by Marino and Prior in their papers, and ask you – here -- why you believe that these do not amount to legitimate pieces of “circumstantial” evidence.
3. The following will be tedious -- but, that’s how it is down in the nitty-gritty.
4. Though, you can probably make it less tedious by ignoring my need to point out the layer (categories, sub-categories or sub-sub-categories) of claims to which I’m, at the time, referring…
5. Per usual, I now perceive my beginning target (as given in #2031, above) slightly off the mark. Consequently, I need to readjust just a little.
6. In that posting, I presented 3 SUB-CATEGORIES of claims supporting one of my CATEGORIES of claims (that the C-14 dating was flawed) supporting my overall claim about Shroud authenticity. Unfortunately(?), I now have a bit of “epistemology” to add to the fray.
6.1. There are numerous reasons -- in general, and in THIS case particular – why the PROCESS itself should be viewed with reservation.
6.2. There is also significant scientific and historical evidence that the origin of the Shroud was much earlier than that arrived at by the carbon dating.
6.3. It turns out that there are significant chemical and physical differences between the C-14 sample and the greater cloth.
6.4. Though the possible ways, CURRENTLY CONCEIVED, for the dating to be so far off, do seem at least somewhat improbable, there remains the a priori possibility of NOT YET CONCEIVED possible ways…
7. With that possibility added, the combined improbability of the dating being so far off from 33 AD pales in light of the improbability of the-date-arrived-at-in-the-dating being correct.
8. So anyway, at this point, I’m already addressing SUB-CATEGORIES OF CLAIMS that (would, if correct) support my overall claim that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity…
9. But anyway, I think that I’ll focus on my first sub-category of claims first instead of (as indicated in my last post) my third sub-category first.
10. The Marino and Pryor papers categorize the data supporting the anomalous nature of the C-14 as
10.1. General possibility of repairs
10.2. Evidence of anomalous nature of C-14 corner
10.3. Possibility or direct evidence of invisible reweaving
10.4. C-14 aspects
11. For the moment, I will focus on what M&P categorize as “C-14 aspects,” and what I have categorized as reasons… why the PROCESS itself should be viewed with reservation. (6.1. above)
12. Note that I am now addressing a claim that is a SUB-CATEGORY of one of the categories of claims supporting my overall claim regarding Shroud authenticity.
13. Anyway, the last 32 entries of the first paper (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf), and, I think, all but two of the 26 entries in the Addendum (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf) deal with this sub-sub-category of claimed evidence.
14. My problem here is that these different “aspects” are “suggestive” (circumstantial) rather than “conclusive,” and don’t weigh a whole lot until we begin to add them up…
15. But perhaps, I can make this a little easier, and more effective, by adding a layer of SUB-SUB-CATEGORIES, and focusing on one sub-sub-category at a time – and, add up within that one sub-sub-category at a time…
16. The sub-sub-categories:
16.1. Pervasive emotional discord.
16.2. Abandoned protocols.
16.3. Location of sample.
16.4. Chemical & physical differences between sample and greater cloth
16.5. Statistical issues
16.6. Unreliability of C14 dating in general, & need for a multidisciplinary approach.
17. I’ll start with 13.1. – PERVASIVE EMOTIONAL DISCORD.
18. In the last 32 entries of the first paper, numbers 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 deal with this issue.
19. In the Addendum, numbers 1, 2, 4, 7-18, 20, and 23-25 deal with this issue.
20. Please keep in mind that while I believe that there is a GREAT DEAL of reasonable doubt (regarding the carbon dating conclusion) within these 24 entries (and, the remaining 79 entries), all I need to SHOW here -- in order to justify the consideration of evidence peripheral to the carbon dating issue -- is SOME reasonable doubt…
21. Please also keep in mind that in my plan for debate we’d be making our cases to a neutral audience.
22. We can address the entries in whatever order you prefer (or, I can choose the order), but your task will be to address one entry at a time, and tell me why it doesn’t “hold water”…
23. Whew!
--- Jabba
1. Here’s how I see it.
1.1. So far, I’ve presented all sorts of EVIDENCE for the possibility -- even probability -- that the carbon dating was flawed.
1.2. You guys, “to a man” – and, in every instance I can remember – just claim that what I call “evidence” is rubbish and has been convincingly (and, in many cases, often) refuted in the past.
1.3. I have never agreed to any of that…
1.4. You also claim that what I call “evidence” is neither scientific nor independent, and consequently of no interest.
1.5. I have never agreed to that either…
1.6. But then, when I ask for specifics about your claims above, you’re basically mum -- except to say that
1.6.1. the specifics have been laid out many times in the past -- and, at least imply, that
1.6.2. It’s up to me to track them down.
1.7. Consequently, my aim here is to
1.7.1. slow down,
1.7.2. present specific claims of evidence argued by researchers, and
1.7.3. Ask for your specific reasons for believing that they do not constitute valid evidence – one claim of evidence at a time.
2. And OK, I won’t ask you to go to my site in order to see the evidence. Instead, I’ll just point you to specific claims made by Marino and Prior in their papers, and ask you – here -- why you believe that these do not amount to legitimate pieces of “circumstantial” evidence.
3. The following will be tedious -- but, that’s how it is down in the nitty-gritty.
4. Though, you can probably make it less tedious by ignoring my need to point out the layer (categories, sub-categories or sub-sub-categories) of claims to which I’m, at the time, referring…
5. Per usual, I now perceive my beginning target (as given in #2031, above) slightly off the mark. Consequently, I need to readjust just a little.
6. In that posting, I presented 3 SUB-CATEGORIES of claims supporting one of my CATEGORIES of claims (that the C-14 dating was flawed) supporting my overall claim about Shroud authenticity. Unfortunately(?), I now have a bit of “epistemology” to add to the fray.
6.1. There are numerous reasons -- in general, and in THIS case particular – why the PROCESS itself should be viewed with reservation.
6.2. There is also significant scientific and historical evidence that the origin of the Shroud was much earlier than that arrived at by the carbon dating.
6.3. It turns out that there are significant chemical and physical differences between the C-14 sample and the greater cloth.
6.4. Though the possible ways, CURRENTLY CONCEIVED, for the dating to be so far off, do seem at least somewhat improbable, there remains the a priori possibility of NOT YET CONCEIVED possible ways…
7. With that possibility added, the combined improbability of the dating being so far off from 33 AD pales in light of the improbability of the-date-arrived-at-in-the-dating being correct.
8. So anyway, at this point, I’m already addressing SUB-CATEGORIES OF CLAIMS that (would, if correct) support my overall claim that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity…
9. But anyway, I think that I’ll focus on my first sub-category of claims first instead of (as indicated in my last post) my third sub-category first.
10. The Marino and Pryor papers categorize the data supporting the anomalous nature of the C-14 as
10.1. General possibility of repairs
10.2. Evidence of anomalous nature of C-14 corner
10.3. Possibility or direct evidence of invisible reweaving
10.4. C-14 aspects
11. For the moment, I will focus on what M&P categorize as “C-14 aspects,” and what I have categorized as reasons… why the PROCESS itself should be viewed with reservation. (6.1. above)
12. Note that I am now addressing a claim that is a SUB-CATEGORY of one of the categories of claims supporting my overall claim regarding Shroud authenticity.
13. Anyway, the last 32 entries of the first paper (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf), and, I think, all but two of the 26 entries in the Addendum (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf) deal with this sub-sub-category of claimed evidence.
14. My problem here is that these different “aspects” are “suggestive” (circumstantial) rather than “conclusive,” and don’t weigh a whole lot until we begin to add them up…
15. But perhaps, I can make this a little easier, and more effective, by adding a layer of SUB-SUB-CATEGORIES, and focusing on one sub-sub-category at a time – and, add up within that one sub-sub-category at a time…
16. The sub-sub-categories:
16.1. Pervasive emotional discord.
16.2. Abandoned protocols.
16.3. Location of sample.
16.4. Chemical & physical differences between sample and greater cloth
16.5. Statistical issues
16.6. Unreliability of C14 dating in general, & need for a multidisciplinary approach.
17. I’ll start with 13.1. – PERVASIVE EMOTIONAL DISCORD.
18. In the last 32 entries of the first paper, numbers 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 deal with this issue.
19. In the Addendum, numbers 1, 2, 4, 7-18, 20, and 23-25 deal with this issue.
20. Please keep in mind that while I believe that there is a GREAT DEAL of reasonable doubt (regarding the carbon dating conclusion) within these 24 entries (and, the remaining 79 entries), all I need to SHOW here -- in order to justify the consideration of evidence peripheral to the carbon dating issue -- is SOME reasonable doubt…
21. Please also keep in mind that in my plan for debate we’d be making our cases to a neutral audience.
22. We can address the entries in whatever order you prefer (or, I can choose the order), but your task will be to address one entry at a time, and tell me why it doesn’t “hold water”…
23. Whew!
--- Jabba
As you've yet to demonstrate any competency in the field of radiometric dating, how you see things is irrelevant. But okay, let's see how you view the world.
You start with lies. Nice. You've provided no EVIDENCE--and in face have refused for page upon page to prove even the nature of the evidence in question (ie, the amount of contamination). You've presented arguments. There's a difference.
Your refusal to accept reality has no bearing on whether or not it happened. We HAVE shown your arguments to be false, and provided references and citations to back up our statements. You don't need to agree to it, but to refuse to do so merely shows you to be willfully ignorant.
You're looking for a specific amount of contamination. You refuse to say what that amount is. You either can't--which means you don't know jack about radiometric dating--or you won't--which means you're dishonest. Is that specific enough for you?
It doesn't give specifics about the amount of contamination.
This is an ad homonym attack, nothing more. I'm not bothering with the rest of your garbage. Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here. NO other argument matters--if you can't produce that, you don't know enough about C14 dating to evaluate it. If there's not that amount of contamination the shroud's a fake, period. Provide that number, or there's nothing else to discuss. If your next post isn't "The amount of contamination necessary is X, and here's how I calculated it" you will go on "Ignore".
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
But now I see face to lace.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Jabba are you trying to fleece us with your arguments ?
Jabba, you are doing what I predicted. You simply refuse to admit that you are wrong, that you have provided no evidence whatsoever :you simply cling to your belief and reiterate the same non sense. There is no further discussion possible. /thread
OK I am throwing the cloth here. Somebody pick it up and take over the fight.
Jabba, you are doing what I predicted. You simply refuse to admit that you are wrong, that you have provided no evidence whatsoever :you simply cling to your belief and reiterate the same non sense. There is no further discussion possible. /thread
OK I am throwing the cloth here. Somebody pick it up and take over the fight.
Where are your genuine scientific papers in which real independent scientists have ever said the C14 results are wrong?
It must have been pointed out to you at least 50 or 60 times here that without any such genuine independent papers, you claims of "EVIDENCE" are worthless ... where are your real papers?
You don't not have any real science research papers do you?
What you are calling "EVIDENCE" is only the erroneous and false claims of religious shroud believers. That's no more "evidence" than the many millions of claims of Christian creationists who deny the scientific papers describing evolution.
You do not have any "EVIDENCE"! What you have is religious propaganda from Christian websites on the internet!
Where are your genuine scientific papers in which real independent scientists have ever said the C14 results are wrong? Post them!
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
If you went any slower you'd be backing up.
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
Jabba, do you really believe to convince anybody in this forum with your arguments?
Do you believe if you can bore us to death you will win?
Do you believe if you can bore us to death you will win?
16.1 is something no one can possibly comment on, outside of a professional psychologist/psychiatrist who's worked with the individuals involved. Unless you, Jabba, are one such person you cannot say anything about this from an informed standpoint.
16.2 has been dealt with. It's been pointed out that alterations to sampling protocols aren't uncommon in science, despite what you want to think. Further, the alterations are incredibly superficial--the number of samples was reduced. NO ONE who's looked at the data objectively has complained about the alterations in the protocols.
16.3 is irrelevant. So long as the material is the same as the rest of the shroud (and the insane argument about an invisible patch has been completely debunked) it doesn't matter where the sample was taken.
16.4 was addressed in the first few pages of this thread. Trace element analysis demonstrated the sampled areas to be the same as the rest of the cloth.
16.5 might be worth discussing, IF you could provide the amount of contamination necessary to yield the results seen.
16.6 is just funny. C14 dating does have some issues; however, you've yet to raise any of them, and I've provided references discussing not only what the actual issues are, but how researchers address them. C14 is about as unreliable as a wrist watch.
No. No no no! NO NO NO NO NO!!!! Stop playing lawyer. This is SCIENCE, not a courtroom. You don't need to "show SOME reasonable doubt", you actually have to SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. If you can't do that it doesn't matter how much "reasonable doubt" there is; you're still so wrong that your assertions don't warrant further consideration.
None of this negates my previous statement. Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges upon one thing: the amount of contamination necessary to make a 1st century cloth yield a C14 date of the 14th century. If your next post isn't "The amount of contamination necessary is X, and here's how I calculated it" you will go on "Ignore".
davefoc
Philosopher
Hi Jabba,
One of your principal claims seems to be that the shroud of Turin might be an artifact from a much earlier time because the results of the C14 dating were in error.
You seem to be basing your assertion that this is true because you believe there might have been an invisible repair to the shroud in the area where the sample for C14 testing was taken. I believe the evidence to support this that you are putting forth is a paper by M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino in 2005 (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf) and perhaps the paper 2005 paper by Ray Rogers.
Have you given some thought as to what would be entailed in making an invisible patch? I don't mean an invisible patch that a skillful repair person might be able to do that conceivably could be made nearly invisible to a naked eye. I mean a patch that would be undetectable on close inspection by somebody with a microscope or magnifying glass. How would you do it? The problem is what do you do with the thread ends of the patch. You might pull out all the vertical and horizontal (warp and weft) that pass through the patch in question and completely reweave the patch area. Or perhaps you envision a technology whereby the end threads of the patch could be attached in an undetectable way with the existing threads of the fabric? Could you provide some information on what process you are thinking of that is so good enough to fool people that have done detailed examinations of the shroud?
Do you have some thoughts as to where one might obtain the materials for an invisible patch that so closely matches the surrounding cloth that it completely fooled experts that selected the patch area in 1988 and it again completely fooled the experts in 2002 when the shroud when the last shroud restoration effort was undertaken? My guess here, is that you intend to rely on the work of Rogers who claimed to have detected differences in the patch material and the rest of the shroud.
Have you taken any time to read through the responses to Rogers work and the criticism of Rogers work even by pro-authenticity advocates. Here's one long critique of Roger's work:
http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm
From the above article:
ETA: I rather liked Lowpro's suggested format so I quoted it below:
One of your principal claims seems to be that the shroud of Turin might be an artifact from a much earlier time because the results of the C14 dating were in error.
You seem to be basing your assertion that this is true because you believe there might have been an invisible repair to the shroud in the area where the sample for C14 testing was taken. I believe the evidence to support this that you are putting forth is a paper by M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino in 2005 (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf) and perhaps the paper 2005 paper by Ray Rogers.
Have you given some thought as to what would be entailed in making an invisible patch? I don't mean an invisible patch that a skillful repair person might be able to do that conceivably could be made nearly invisible to a naked eye. I mean a patch that would be undetectable on close inspection by somebody with a microscope or magnifying glass. How would you do it? The problem is what do you do with the thread ends of the patch. You might pull out all the vertical and horizontal (warp and weft) that pass through the patch in question and completely reweave the patch area. Or perhaps you envision a technology whereby the end threads of the patch could be attached in an undetectable way with the existing threads of the fabric? Could you provide some information on what process you are thinking of that is so good enough to fool people that have done detailed examinations of the shroud?
Do you have some thoughts as to where one might obtain the materials for an invisible patch that so closely matches the surrounding cloth that it completely fooled experts that selected the patch area in 1988 and it again completely fooled the experts in 2002 when the shroud when the last shroud restoration effort was undertaken? My guess here, is that you intend to rely on the work of Rogers who claimed to have detected differences in the patch material and the rest of the shroud.
Have you taken any time to read through the responses to Rogers work and the criticism of Rogers work even by pro-authenticity advocates. Here's one long critique of Roger's work:
http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm
From the above article:
Rather than attempt a broad outline of what you intend to prove again, I think you might focus on a specific point that you wish to make. In this case, a specific statement by you of what you believe to be a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud would be relevant I think.
ETA: I rather liked Lowpro's suggested format so I quoted it below:
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Very funny, Jabba. You know full well those specifics have been discussed not only here but in other forums. I've posted up links to specific posts. Are we to assume you never took the trouble to read them?
You've yet to show this.
What on earth are you talking about? This isn't a public debate.
Nor is it for you to decide what format is to be followed here, Jabba.
Now.
About the contamination of the samples taken of the TS?
Please keep to the subject.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating
Davefoc,
- Thanks for your persistence.
- If you can hang in here, I'll try to answer all of your questions -- but, in each of my responses, I'll try to answer just one. I'll go on and try to answer the rest of your questions in future posts, but again just one at a time. See below.
--- Jabba
Davefoc,
- Thanks for your persistence.
- If you can hang in here, I'll try to answer all of your questions -- but, in each of my responses, I'll try to answer just one. I'll go on and try to answer the rest of your questions in future posts, but again just one at a time. See below.
--- Jabba
- If I understand what you're saying, Yes.
And onto "Ignore" you go. I've given you ample opportunity to provide the number that your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is centered around, and you cannot or are unwilling to do so. You therefore cannot have anything of value to contribute to this conversation--as anything of value is dependent upon that number.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Isis wept, Jabba. The one thing out of that fairly substantive post that you've pretended to answer isn't even a question - it's just a simple statement intended to serve as a preamble.
To turn your own poor analogy around on you: if this was a court then you would be in contempt of it.
- Status