abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Do you think davefoc knows yet that he has been adopted as Jabbas mascot?
This thread needs to be moved to humor.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
How about a bit of creative merging into a mega-thread called "The incredible odds of the the New Testament writers telling the truth about the blood on the shroud"?
The above is all 100% totally irrelevant nonsense which you have posted at least 20 times before.
There is only one issue here, and it’s this - You have been asked at least 50 times for any scientifically valid independent papers criticising the C14, and it’s crystal clear that you definitely do not have any.
In the above you are yet again, for what must be the 30th time, trying to rewind the arguments to go back & repeat all the totally discredited things you claimed 40 pages back.
If you don't have any real scientific papers which claim the C14 was wrong, then that's the end of the scientific line of argument. And you very clearly do not have such genuine papers.
That was your only task in this thread - to produce even one genuine independent science paper that claims the C14 is wrong. You have absolutely no answer to that at all ... you do not have even one genuine paper.
Either produce a real independent paper, or else admit once and for all that you have no such paper criticising the C14.
I've asked you for this before, and all you showed me was one painting where you declared the top of a sarcophagus to be a shroud, and a vague mention of another supposed relic. Evidence for this would have to be incredibly strong to bring doubt onto the carbon dating results, but from what I can tell, there's litarally nothing to indicate that this cloth was around before 13th century let alone the first.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Aha, I like it. But the title did make my eyes water. Is that a miracle?
davefoc
Philosopher
Hello Jabba et al.
I am a little rushed for time this morning. I would like to spend a bit more time reviewing what has been said before posting but I don't have time right now.
First a general comment:
I can relate a bit to where you are coming from Jabba. At first glance there appears to be a balance of reasonable experts on both sides of this issue. Given that, you have, reasonably enough, tried to determine which set of experts to trust and your choice, reasonably enough, has been influenced by what you believe outside the area of C14 testing on the shroud. I think this process isn't a lot different even for the skeptics, except, I think, most (probably all) of us believe that even without the C14 testing it is wildly unlikely that this is the burial shroud of Jesus.
I would note a few things about the situation with regard to shroud experts that applies to this kind of thing in general. There is a market for shroud authenticity advocates. A lot of people want to believe the shroud is authentic and they will buy books and read articles by people that support their confirmation biases. They will even spend money to go to conventions to hear these people. When there is a market for something people will produce it, so that the existence of shroud authenticity proponents would be expected regardless of the quality of evidence that supports the authenticity of the shroud. Unfortunately this means the existence of authenticity proponents, even a lot of them, provides almost no probative evidence about the authenticity of the shroud. This means that a personal search for truth on this issue requires an examination of the credibility of people that write about the shroud to sort through the issue of whether what is going on with regard to shroud authenticity advocacy is serious science or just routine blather that accompanies all these kind of things.
I think the pro-authenticity arguments easily fall into the routine blather range for something like this, but I am also in the camp that believes it is indistinguishably different from impossible that the shroud is authentic. However, even if I believed in the authenticity of the shroud the C14 evidence would be daunting evidence that I was wrong. That there are arguments against the reliability of the C14 tests is to be fully expected. Many people have staked a great deal of effort doing questionable science to promote the authenticity of the shroud. It is fully expected that they would not accept even daunting evidence that conflicts with deeply held beliefs and that they would promote the reliability of even very dodgy arguments to sustain their personal beliefs and in some cases to sustain the economic benefit they gain from advocacy for shroud authenticity.
Right now, the specific issue that I proposed for you to address was whether the shroud underwent an invisible repair in the area where the C14 samples were taken.
I will repeat my question to you here: What method do you believe could have been used to make such a repair?
Here is some information about what experts that have examined the shroud on this subject have to say:
From "An Evidentiary Analysis of the Proofs Claimed by Ray Rogers" by Mark Antonacci
I am a little rushed for time this morning. I would like to spend a bit more time reviewing what has been said before posting but I don't have time right now.
First a general comment:
I can relate a bit to where you are coming from Jabba. At first glance there appears to be a balance of reasonable experts on both sides of this issue. Given that, you have, reasonably enough, tried to determine which set of experts to trust and your choice, reasonably enough, has been influenced by what you believe outside the area of C14 testing on the shroud. I think this process isn't a lot different even for the skeptics, except, I think, most (probably all) of us believe that even without the C14 testing it is wildly unlikely that this is the burial shroud of Jesus.
I would note a few things about the situation with regard to shroud experts that applies to this kind of thing in general. There is a market for shroud authenticity advocates. A lot of people want to believe the shroud is authentic and they will buy books and read articles by people that support their confirmation biases. They will even spend money to go to conventions to hear these people. When there is a market for something people will produce it, so that the existence of shroud authenticity proponents would be expected regardless of the quality of evidence that supports the authenticity of the shroud. Unfortunately this means the existence of authenticity proponents, even a lot of them, provides almost no probative evidence about the authenticity of the shroud. This means that a personal search for truth on this issue requires an examination of the credibility of people that write about the shroud to sort through the issue of whether what is going on with regard to shroud authenticity advocacy is serious science or just routine blather that accompanies all these kind of things.
I think the pro-authenticity arguments easily fall into the routine blather range for something like this, but I am also in the camp that believes it is indistinguishably different from impossible that the shroud is authentic. However, even if I believed in the authenticity of the shroud the C14 evidence would be daunting evidence that I was wrong. That there are arguments against the reliability of the C14 tests is to be fully expected. Many people have staked a great deal of effort doing questionable science to promote the authenticity of the shroud. It is fully expected that they would not accept even daunting evidence that conflicts with deeply held beliefs and that they would promote the reliability of even very dodgy arguments to sustain their personal beliefs and in some cases to sustain the economic benefit they gain from advocacy for shroud authenticity.
Right now, the specific issue that I proposed for you to address was whether the shroud underwent an invisible repair in the area where the C14 samples were taken.
I will repeat my question to you here: What method do you believe could have been used to make such a repair?
Here is some information about what experts that have examined the shroud on this subject have to say:
From "An Evidentiary Analysis of the Proofs Claimed by Ray Rogers" by Mark Antonacci
From http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index3.html (page 3)
*[FONT="]M. Flury-Lemberg, Sindone 2002 (Torino: Editrice ODPF, 2003), p. 60. English translation: Rosamund Bandi and Susie Clavarino Phillips.[/FONT]
There's a habit that distinguishes scientists from advocates: A scientist will usually, and always if asked for it, state the nature of the evidence required to prove their hypothesis wrong. For example, when Alvarez et al. proposed a bolide impact as the event ending the Mesozoic Era they acknowledged that a gradual extinction, starting well before the impact event itself, would be sufficient proof that the impact wasn't the cause of the extinction. Scientists such as Peter Ward went out and tried to find evidence of gradual and catastrphic extinctions. Similarly, physicists in general admit that if certain subatomic particles aren't found it will mean that our current understanding of physics requires re-evaluation. That's why the evidence for the Higgs bosson is so important--it's a disproof of a counter-argument against the modern understanding of physics, and one of the biggest we have right now.davefoc said:
C14 dating is subject to numerous issues. I've worked with C14 dating that was contaminated with "dead" carbon (carbon where all the C14 has been removed), and it makes dating a nightmare. There's also issues with things like calibration curves, and solar cycles, and closing temperatures. So I'm not going to say, and I don't believe I HAVE said, that the C14 dating is entirely conclusive and cannot be questioned. However, C14 dating does work, and works for innumerable artifacts. No one questions C14 dating of the charcoal remains of an ancient camp fire (I've collected samples for such analysis). No one questions C14 dating of bone, horn, or wooden handles on weapons. No one questions C14 dating of teeth and bone (they raise unholy hell when you propose doing it, but if you get the chance and follow established protocols no one will dismiss your results merely because C14 dating is somewhat difficult to interpret). These issues are ONLY raised with the shroud. I can't even say that the data is expected to be extraordinarily high-quality--in truth, the doubts about C14 dating raised by pro-1st century advocates indicate that NO quality of data would be acceptable!
All of that said, the entire C14 argument boils down to one single number: the amount of contamination necessary to make a 1st century cloth read as though it was from the 14th century. If someone is claiming that the C14 dating is wrong, that number is what they are, by the nature of the system and the nature of their arguments, looking for. Thus far, no one on the pro-1st century side has even provided that number, let alone shown that that degree of contamination is feasible.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Why don't you take a leaf out of Jabba's book? Spend time reviewing what has been said and then post that you don't have time to post anything else.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Jabba, please allow me to run with your courtroom analogy a little bit.
This is like a murder trial. There's a guy (we'll call him Tony Soprano, or TS for short) on trial for shooting someone. There's no witness to place him at the scene, but forensic testing of the bullet that caused death shows that it was fired from a gun owned by Tony. This gun was subsequently found in Tony's locked car which only he has the keys to, with a bullet missing from the magazine and only Tony's fingerprints on the gun. When tested Tony was found to have gunshot residue on his hands and arm and blood spatter from the victim on his shoes and trousers. There's also several shoe prints at the murder scene that match Tony's expensive and virtually unique shoes that he always wears, tyre prints from his car at the scene and no fingerprints, hairs or fibres that don't come from Tony or his clothes in the car.
However, a good friend of Tony's says that he thought he might possibly have seen Tony at the time of the shooting in a bar 5 miles away, and the defence attorney has pointed out that the real killer could possibly have worn gloves and that the blood spatter might possibly be from someone else, or maybe was transplanted by the real killer. He also argues that since Tony owned the gun it's hardly surprising that he has gunshot residue, he is after all legally allowed to fire his own gun, and who knows whether or not the real killer might have stolen Tony's car keys, taken the gun and Tony's shoes, killed the victim, planted Tony's shoe prints, returned the gun, planted the blood spatter on Tony, reloaded the gun, somehow got Tony to fire a bullet from it, placed it back in the car and returned Tony's car keys, all without Tony knowing about it.
The defence attorney has also found a guy who has no expertise in forensics, but thinks that despite what all the forensic scientists say, blood matching isn't as accurate as most people think, that gunshot residue can come from other sources, and the shoe prints could come from any old pair of loafers. Not a single expert witness has taken the stand for the defence, and when the defence cross-examined the expert witnesses they were all adamant that only Tony could have murdered the victim, no other explanation fits the data, to which the defence attorney suggests that maybe one or more of them was in on it.
You're on the jury. Would you convict Tony? Do you think that the defence attorney has raised a reasonable doubt?
And that's where you are.
The C14 result, combined with the fact that the image on the shroud isn't in natural proportions and matches almost exactly the artistic style of the C14 date and the weave is of a type that wasn't known in the 1st century but was in the 14th, is the blood spatter, shoe prints and gunshot residue. It's hard forensic evidence. The expert witnesses all agree that the C14 date is correct. On the other side you have some non-expert witnesses suggesting that maybe the C14 date is wrong, because maybe the shroud was contaminated, or maybe the test section wasn't representative of the whole cloth. Some others suggest that the odd proportions of the body were caused by the magical way that the image was imprinted on the shroud, and yet others suggesting that the scientists who did the C14 testing are lying. They have no science just insinuations that the real science might possibly be flawed, although they can't properly explain how.
All the experts agree that all of the evidence gives a clear and definitive date for the age of the shroud that places its production in the 13th to 14th century.
If this were a courtroom then you're not arguing a case, because the jury have already retired, several years ago in fact, and you're now just engaged in fruitlessly searching for an attorney to lodge an appeal. Fruitless, because no attorney will take the case for the simple reason that they know the appeal would be dismissed out of hand.
This is like a murder trial. There's a guy (we'll call him Tony Soprano, or TS for short) on trial for shooting someone. There's no witness to place him at the scene, but forensic testing of the bullet that caused death shows that it was fired from a gun owned by Tony. This gun was subsequently found in Tony's locked car which only he has the keys to, with a bullet missing from the magazine and only Tony's fingerprints on the gun. When tested Tony was found to have gunshot residue on his hands and arm and blood spatter from the victim on his shoes and trousers. There's also several shoe prints at the murder scene that match Tony's expensive and virtually unique shoes that he always wears, tyre prints from his car at the scene and no fingerprints, hairs or fibres that don't come from Tony or his clothes in the car.
However, a good friend of Tony's says that he thought he might possibly have seen Tony at the time of the shooting in a bar 5 miles away, and the defence attorney has pointed out that the real killer could possibly have worn gloves and that the blood spatter might possibly be from someone else, or maybe was transplanted by the real killer. He also argues that since Tony owned the gun it's hardly surprising that he has gunshot residue, he is after all legally allowed to fire his own gun, and who knows whether or not the real killer might have stolen Tony's car keys, taken the gun and Tony's shoes, killed the victim, planted Tony's shoe prints, returned the gun, planted the blood spatter on Tony, reloaded the gun, somehow got Tony to fire a bullet from it, placed it back in the car and returned Tony's car keys, all without Tony knowing about it.
The defence attorney has also found a guy who has no expertise in forensics, but thinks that despite what all the forensic scientists say, blood matching isn't as accurate as most people think, that gunshot residue can come from other sources, and the shoe prints could come from any old pair of loafers. Not a single expert witness has taken the stand for the defence, and when the defence cross-examined the expert witnesses they were all adamant that only Tony could have murdered the victim, no other explanation fits the data, to which the defence attorney suggests that maybe one or more of them was in on it.
You're on the jury. Would you convict Tony? Do you think that the defence attorney has raised a reasonable doubt?
And that's where you are.
The C14 result, combined with the fact that the image on the shroud isn't in natural proportions and matches almost exactly the artistic style of the C14 date and the weave is of a type that wasn't known in the 1st century but was in the 14th, is the blood spatter, shoe prints and gunshot residue. It's hard forensic evidence. The expert witnesses all agree that the C14 date is correct. On the other side you have some non-expert witnesses suggesting that maybe the C14 date is wrong, because maybe the shroud was contaminated, or maybe the test section wasn't representative of the whole cloth. Some others suggest that the odd proportions of the body were caused by the magical way that the image was imprinted on the shroud, and yet others suggesting that the scientists who did the C14 testing are lying. They have no science just insinuations that the real science might possibly be flawed, although they can't properly explain how.
All the experts agree that all of the evidence gives a clear and definitive date for the age of the shroud that places its production in the 13th to 14th century.
If this were a courtroom then you're not arguing a case, because the jury have already retired, several years ago in fact, and you're now just engaged in fruitlessly searching for an attorney to lodge an appeal. Fruitless, because no attorney will take the case for the simple reason that they know the appeal would be dismissed out of hand.
I believe that the Shroud is, in fact, the sleeping bag of Attila the Hun. I have many reasons to believe this, including having seen a movie in which John Wayne played Attila, and having read pro-Attila websites (one of which I manage myself), and my own personal feeling that it would be supercool if it were true. The 14C dating is off a bit, but less so than if the Shroud was the burial cloth for Christ.
I first intend to create a complex outline of the arguments I intend to make, and then present them slowly over the next months, repeating debunked arguments as necessary. How many pages can I go before we roll over into a part 2 thread?
I first intend to create a complex outline of the arguments I intend to make, and then present them slowly over the next months, repeating debunked arguments as necessary. How many pages can I go before we roll over into a part 2 thread?
Last edited:
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,363
Genius, Sir. I'll nominate as soon as I can get to the internet
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
^
Seconded.
Gosh.
Lots of thoughtful posts on the subject of the TS have been posted up.
Still, I'll admit to being a bit disappointed Jabba's friends don't post here. Perhaps my request for a pro-Shroud forum link has been buried in the thread, but I'd be interested in seeing how the authenticity advocates argue on their own turf.
Well, Jabba, the reason for that is very simple and I'll tell you how to find it.
Look for the common denominators in the answers to your posts.
You'll see there's basically one subject most people who post here consider worth discussing on the subject of TS.
Yes, it's the C14 dating.
You're being asked, unanimously (correct me if I'm wrong) to show WHY that scientific evidence is controversial.
And to show it via science, not via allusions to a conspiracy.
Researchers? Name them, please.
I'm bumping this to show where things stand with the C14 dating of the TS.
From 7 to 3. Since the Vatican was footing the bill, they called the shots on that. I doubt the Holy See thought that a movement to discredit the scientific results would be spawned by this decision.
Just as I read all yreeG's posts in Dr. Sheldon Cooper's voice, now all Jabba's have, thanks to you, found their own identity.
I've referred you again and again to your own earlier threads at the atheist forum where your ideas were debunked.
Do you really not see where your answers have been repeatedly countered?
Is there really one which has not been countered?
If so, could you link to it, please?
Does this post help you understand why the contamination 'objection' is so absurd, Jabba?
Seconded.
Gosh.
Lots of thoughtful posts on the subject of the TS have been posted up.
Still, I'll admit to being a bit disappointed Jabba's friends don't post here. Perhaps my request for a pro-Shroud forum link has been buried in the thread, but I'd be interested in seeing how the authenticity advocates argue on their own turf.
Well, Jabba, the reason for that is very simple and I'll tell you how to find it.
Look for the common denominators in the answers to your posts.
You'll see there's basically one subject most people who post here consider worth discussing on the subject of TS.
Yes, it's the C14 dating.
You're being asked, unanimously (correct me if I'm wrong) to show WHY that scientific evidence is controversial.
And to show it via science, not via allusions to a conspiracy.
Researchers? Name them, please.
I'm bumping this to show where things stand with the C14 dating of the TS.
From 7 to 3. Since the Vatican was footing the bill, they called the shots on that. I doubt the Holy See thought that a movement to discredit the scientific results would be spawned by this decision.
Just as I read all yreeG's posts in Dr. Sheldon Cooper's voice, now all Jabba's have, thanks to you, found their own identity.
I've referred you again and again to your own earlier threads at the atheist forum where your ideas were debunked.
Do you really not see where your answers have been repeatedly countered?
Is there really one which has not been countered?
If so, could you link to it, please?
Does this post help you understand why the contamination 'objection' is so absurd, Jabba?
The reason why the C14 is the end point of this discussion, and the end point for Jabba, is because -
- if the C14 is right, then all other arguments about authenticity are ruled out completely.
- if the shroud dates from c.1260 - 1390AD, then arguments about blood, or the weave pattern, or whether anyone has recreated the image etc., are all dead in the water.
So the only real question here is - Is the C14 right?
And the answer to that is - the C14 tests were specifically “scientific”, and the only valid way to refute published scientific results is for someone to publish equally valid scientific results showing the C14 to be wrong.
But so far, despite what Jabba keeps claiming, the true fact is that in 25 years since the C14 tests were made, not one genuine independent scientist has ever published a single word claiming any doubt about the C14 results.
On that basis the C14 stands entirely unchallenged (challenges which amount only to religious faith, don’t count).
Exactly the same applies to claims of a patch or invisible repair. That claim is also 100% worthless unless someone can produce a genuine independent science paper showing that the C14 sample area was actually a 13th-14th century patch. But in the absence of any such paper, the patch/repair claim is again nothing more than the same religious faith claim all over again.
That was really the point of ever doing the C14 in the first place, ie to put an end to speculative claims and counter-claims about authenticity of the shroud.
Has the C14 put an end to the debate? Well actually, despite all the continuing religious protests, yes it has. It’s put an end to it because there is no valid argument left in favour of authenticity unless and until someone produces genuine scientific publications showing the C14 was wrong … and so far, in 25 years, nobody has been able to produce even one such objecting paper. Not even one.
That’s why the buck stops with the C14. And it’s been stopped there since 1988.
Edit just to add -
That doesn’t mean you can’t have all sorts of interesting discussions about the shroud. But it does mean you can’t have a valid discussion if that discussion attempts to proceed on the basis of claiming or implying that that the likely date of the shroud is anything other than 13th-14th century.
And unfortunately that is what Jabba and his fellow shroud believers want to do … they want to proceed only on the basis that we reject the C14, and on any honest basis that is just not possible.
- if the C14 is right, then all other arguments about authenticity are ruled out completely.
- if the shroud dates from c.1260 - 1390AD, then arguments about blood, or the weave pattern, or whether anyone has recreated the image etc., are all dead in the water.
So the only real question here is - Is the C14 right?
And the answer to that is - the C14 tests were specifically “scientific”, and the only valid way to refute published scientific results is for someone to publish equally valid scientific results showing the C14 to be wrong.
But so far, despite what Jabba keeps claiming, the true fact is that in 25 years since the C14 tests were made, not one genuine independent scientist has ever published a single word claiming any doubt about the C14 results.
On that basis the C14 stands entirely unchallenged (challenges which amount only to religious faith, don’t count).
Exactly the same applies to claims of a patch or invisible repair. That claim is also 100% worthless unless someone can produce a genuine independent science paper showing that the C14 sample area was actually a 13th-14th century patch. But in the absence of any such paper, the patch/repair claim is again nothing more than the same religious faith claim all over again.
That was really the point of ever doing the C14 in the first place, ie to put an end to speculative claims and counter-claims about authenticity of the shroud.
Has the C14 put an end to the debate? Well actually, despite all the continuing religious protests, yes it has. It’s put an end to it because there is no valid argument left in favour of authenticity unless and until someone produces genuine scientific publications showing the C14 was wrong … and so far, in 25 years, nobody has been able to produce even one such objecting paper. Not even one.
That’s why the buck stops with the C14. And it’s been stopped there since 1988.
Edit just to add -
That doesn’t mean you can’t have all sorts of interesting discussions about the shroud. But it does mean you can’t have a valid discussion if that discussion attempts to proceed on the basis of claiming or implying that that the likely date of the shroud is anything other than 13th-14th century.
And unfortunately that is what Jabba and his fellow shroud believers want to do … they want to proceed only on the basis that we reject the C14, and on any honest basis that is just not possible.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
I disagree. This is a discussion forum, and a great place to exchange ideas without having the formality of publication. So, unlike others, I don't insist that Jabba provide reliable published results that demonstrate the failure of the C14 dating.
Then again, what I DO expect Jabba or other supporter to do is actually come up with a possible mechanism that would explain why a shroud from year 0 or before is dating to 1300 CE. And I don't mean random speculation, I mean actual, plausible mechanisms. We have heard a couple but they haven't held up. The patch crap has been completely destroyed 14 times over from Sunday, and no one has been able to support the contamination explanation, as Jabba doesn't even know how much contamination would be needed to cause the problem, nor an explanation for why it is there. Another one that has been mentioned in this thread has something to do with CO contamination, but no one has actually explained HOW that occurs to a level to account for the difference in the dates. Presumably it has something to do with carbon exchange between atmospheric CO and the carbon in the shroud, but I really don't have a clue what that entails nor how it occurs. But hey, I'm willing to listen to the proposed mechanism if someone can come up with one.
However, a PLAUSIBLE explanation means more than just saying, "It could be X" where X is some random factor. You actually have to show that X is plausible. I know lots of possible reasons why a shroud from 0 could date to 1300 CE. However, there is no reason to think that any of them apply to the shroud. And no one has ever postulated one that has stood up to any scrutiny at all.
This is what I want. You don't need to supply peer-reviewed citations (actually, I think this is a disingenuous request, since we all know they don't exist), but for pete's sake, say SOMETHING that is in the realm of being a possible explanation for why the C14 measurements have come out wrong. I'm glad to hear it and discuss it here. However, it should be something that doesn't invoke magic, and should have evidence to think that it could have occurred, as opposed to the secret invisible patch that no one knows about or the pile of contamination that no one can see.
You might not have needed peer reviewed papers before the C14 was published. But since that publication you definitely do need to present comparable genuine publications if you are ever going to seriously challenge the C14.
That’s the whole reason that real science research is published in that way.
If it is claimed that a patch renders the C14 dating wrong. Then that claim must be held to the same scientific standards as the C14 … it has to be published.
If you make claims like that, but can’t get any of them published as genuine scientifically valid results, then frankly the claims are worthless.
The reason Benford and Marino could not publish their claim of an invisible patch was not because they did not try to get it published. In fact they did submit it to Radiocarbon, but it was rejected. It was rejected because the claim was not valid science.
Shroud believers like Ray Rogers, Benford & Marino and many others, have been trying to submit papers to genuine scientific journals for decades, but they are always rejected. Because far from being scientifically valid, they are instead just rather obvious religious propaganda.
Once the C14 was done and gave dates of c.1260 -1390AD, that put all arguments about the shroud on a very different footing altogether. Once something like that is published, the only way to dispute it is with similarly valid genuine science … not with claims and counter claims on shroud websites.
Edit, just to address the following quote more directly -
As I said in the edit to my previous post - it does not mean you can’t discuss it. But it does mean that the discussion has to acknowledge the C14 dates as the most likely, because they remain scientifically unchallenged after 25 years. Otherwise, if you want to discuss it on the basis that the C14 is wrong, then the discussion is deliberately unscientific in an arena where an unchallenged scientific determination has already been properly made and stood the peer-reviewed test of time.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating
- Either I don't understand your request, or I complied (and further described my C-14 knowledge) in post #1931, and you just missed it.
- In that post, I say, - I understand that there would have to be a lot of “contamination” by new tissue in order to account for a misreading of 1300 years. Harry Gove says that the weight of whatever is being dated would have to be about 75% brand new, to 25% old, in order to account for those 13 centuries. Gove accepted that Garza-Valdes did find some previously undisclosed contamination that remained after cleaning, but that Garza’s contamination wouldn’t account for more than 1 century of misreading.
- I'm afraid that I didn't calculate the contamination required -- I was just going by Gove's claim.
--- Jabba
Dinwar,
- Either I don't understand your request, or I complied (and further described my C-14 knowledge) in post #1931, and you just missed it.
- In that post, I say, - I understand that there would have to be a lot of “contamination” by new tissue in order to account for a misreading of 1300 years. Harry Gove says that the weight of whatever is being dated would have to be about 75% brand new, to 25% old, in order to account for those 13 centuries. Gove accepted that Garza-Valdes did find some previously undisclosed contamination that remained after cleaning, but that Garza’s contamination wouldn’t account for more than 1 century of misreading.
- I'm afraid that I didn't calculate the contamination required -- I was just going by Gove's claim.
--- Jabba
Last edited:
So, you agree that the reading can't be wrong because of contamination?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating
- Good analogy (what appears above that last comment). If I can find the time, I'll try to complete it (as I see it). Right now, I have my hands full.
--- Jabba
Wollery,
- Good analogy (what appears above that last comment). If I can find the time, I'll try to complete it (as I see it). Right now, I have my hands full.
--- Jabba
- Status