Lucian
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,257
Because shroudies say things like this:
If something looks obviously wrong, that's evidence that it's NOT a forgery because a clever forger wouldn't make an obvious mistake.
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Sceptics will follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if that means abandoning long held, even cherished belief. Shroudies will not change their mind no matter what evidence is presented.
For example, what evidence would it take for you to accept that the shroud is a mediaeval artefact? Is there any evidence that would get you to accept that?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating - Reweaving?
Originally Posted by the above link
Piece Weave on a solid color material may show a discernible square outline.
- I think I understand what you're saying, but not sure. Can you try again?
--- Jabba
Originally Posted by the above link
Piece Weave on a solid color material may show a discernible square outline.
Dinwar,
- I think I understand what you're saying, but not sure. Can you try again?
--- Jabba
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Wow. You want to make others responsible for your own failures. After all it is _you_ who is constantly tap-dancing around, or even completely ignoring, the issues at hand. It _is_ your fault, and it's only you who is to blame for that.
What you are trying to do there, and openly admit to, is just disgusting.
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
The point of the scientific method is to avoid doing this. It can be easy to do, hence the importance of ensuring that one doesn`t fall prey to this error. If it does happen, recognize it and correct it. Don`t make the same fundamental error repeatedly.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating & Contamination
- I disagree that a credible opponent for you in this debate would need to know how to calculate the contamination needed in order to get 1300 on a 1st century cloth, but I seem to have some time to see if I can figure it out. You've directed me to something to read already, but I can't remember what it was... I'll look around for myself until you give me some help.
--- Jabba
Dinwar,
- I disagree that a credible opponent for you in this debate would need to know how to calculate the contamination needed in order to get 1300 on a 1st century cloth, but I seem to have some time to see if I can figure it out. You've directed me to something to read already, but I can't remember what it was... I'll look around for myself until you give me some help.
--- Jabba
Well, as a Christian who believes in God and Jesus, you already told us (earlier in this thread) that you want to believe the shroud is authentic.
Whereas to people like me, it doesn't matter at all whether it's from biblical times or not.
That would seem highly likely to lead you into what someone else called "confirmation bias", ie a bias of wishing to confirm your belief in the shroud and it's support for your faith.
That's why shroud believing Christians are likely to be more biased than sceptics who could not care less about the shroud.
Was that not obvious to you?
Who?
Because it only has to be good enough to fool the more credulous, of whom there still seem to be plenty despite better education and the advances of science.
Well, however it was created, since it is carbon-dated to the 14th century it can't be a burial shroud from the 1st century.
I'm pretty sure the answer has been given in this thread, more than once. Are you not reading the responses you get?
Oh dear. This has become entirely hilarious.
Hands up all those who still want to join Jabba in debate and re-debate and re-re-debate of his every conceivable issue ... “ this is a FRIGGIN INTERNET DISCSSION GROUP after all ", lol
Jabba, you don’t have any valid scientific evidence (that’s why your sources can’t ever get anything published) … but the C14 is valid scientific evidence - it's very clear and direct evidence of a 13th-14th century date, sorry).
Than you're a fool. If you can't calculate this number you do not know enough about carbon dating to critique the methods. YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT boils down to proving that exactly this amount of contamination is present. If any more or less is present YOU ARE WRONG.Jabba said:
I'm sorry, but I cannot comprehend how an honest person can say that they don't see any reason to know their own central argument.
It's been MONTHS. If you could do it you'd have done it by now. And that's being EXTREMELY generous--you've stated that you have studied the shroud for 20 years. The fact that you've never thought to ask "Gee, I wonder how much contamination it would take to make my argument true" shows that you've given this matter no actual thought.
No, I haven't. I suggested that you read an isotopic geochemistry book, but I haven't given you the equation. That equation is so bloody basic to radiometric dating that I expect someone who feels confident to critique a radiometric study to at least be able to find the equation without assistance.
Thus far you've presented exactly one skill in this thread: shifting the blame for your own failings. This quote is nothing more than your attempt to make it MY fault that you can't figure out the basics of the field you're presuming to be an expert in (and make no mistake, arguing that you know more than the people who were chosen by people who were biased against the conclusion reached to do the study means that you believe you are an expert). Nothing here is your fault--it's all everyone else. They don't give you enough time, they don't provide you the data you need despite it being readily available all over the web, etc. ad nauseum.
Your entire argument rests on the C14 issue. You tell me--what does it say that you don't know even the basics of this argument, after 20 years?
We're talking about a time period in which an iron nail could be considered a holy relic from the True Cross, without any documentation or corroboration.
Lucian
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,257
We do, but really proponents of all fringe theories seem to work the same way: pick itty bitty holes in the conventional explanation; propose alternative suggestions. Fortunately, you don't have to stick with one alternative--it's contamination! it's a patch! it's a patch made up entirely of invisible contamination! When one alternative gets knocked down, move on to the next. When they've all been dealt with, start over. If there's a glaringly obvious problem with the fringe point of view, that's just evidence in its favor because forgers/the NWO/writers of the New Testament wouldn't have made such a glaringly obvious mistake, so there must be some other explanation.
And of course you can't trust so-called experts: if they're not actually "in on it" (whatever "it" happens to be) they have a vested interest in supporting the conventional wisdom. That's why, when all's said and done, you can really only trust YouTube.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Obviously not. And he now wants to have someone to take the blame for his failures, as he has openly said.
Greetings,
Chris
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Dinwar is right. You pretend to critique the 14C lab result, but you have no the slightiest clue on what would be needed to have such a contamination to make the shroud look so much younger. When you central argument is that the 14C dating is wrong due to contamination that is trully foolish. Now imagine you were to calculate that number, and found out the amount of modern sout/carbon needed for such contamination to shift the age by 1200 years would mean that a great percentage (the majority) of the carbon of the sample is modern, and from photography of the sample it is obviously not the case, that would make you appear very foolish.
Now you udnerstand why Dinwar is asking you for that calculation over and over ?
BY the way if you want to know, making such a calculation, and taking a very rough approximation, I get that a sample 2000 years old should have 78% 14C left, a sample from from 750 years ago ( from year ~1250 ) has 91% 14C left.
So you have the following :
Time period 14C left quantity per mole
Modern carbon 100% 1 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so 6.0 10^11 per mole
0 AD carbon 78% 0,78 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so ~4,7 10^11 per mole
Seemingly 1250 AD 91% 0,91 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so ~5,5 10^11 per mole
Let us define the quantity Mc , Mh, Mt as follow :
Mh=historic quantity of carbon original
Mt=total sample given
Mc=contaminating foreign modern carbon
m Carbon molar mass
It is obvious that Mt=Mh+Mc and also that the relationship ebtween the carbon quantity is fixed (number carbon 14 sample=contaminated carbon 14+historical 14C)
What Dinwar asked you is how would you calculate Mc knowing Mt and knowing the Mh carbon has only 78% carbon left, and knowing that the apparent age is only 750 year old and apparent 14C quantity is 91%.
using the crappy calc tool from windows and using a sample size simplifying the equation I got a final answer which is VERY interresting.
Really do the calculation. And then when you have got the contaminant quantity , tell us from where it could possibly come and still look like a normal cloth fiber.
PS: if you do not know the original weight of the sample, do like me and take 1 mg to simply the equations.
PPS: actually if you calculate in concentration of 14C among 12C you don't even need that at all.
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Also spoiler alert , imagine you have something with a concentration of ~0.8 (0.78) and something of concentration of 1, how much of both you mix to get a final concentration of ~0.9 (0.91) ? I would say , half of the first and half of the second. (1.0+0.8)/2=0.9. Now unless I made an obvious error somewhere, it looks to me that scientist would certainly have remarked that their cloth fiber were HALF contaminated by foreign carbon. Like Sout.
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
If I have not done an error in my calculation or assumption, I predict (for the million dollar) that Jabba will either ignore the psot, or leave the thread not to come back ever.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
If only someone would invent some sort of way to make notes. Like some kind of material that people could make marks on and some sort of implement which could make marks. Or, even better, some sort of electronic version. Some sort of electronic pad on which you could make notes. They could even bundle it in with people's operating systems. They could call it Windows Padnote or something.
If only we lived in such a world, eh?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Of course you disagree. If you were a credible opponent you wouldn't, but alas . . .
You've had years in which to do so. A last-minute rally seems highly unllikely at this point.
It was science. I don't think you forget it so much as you actually repel it in the same way a duck repels water.
No you won't.
- Status