Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Game Plan
- You guys believe that you have already proved or refuted (somewhere back in these 78 pages) all sorts of claims.
- It so happens that I disagree with most, if not all, of these claims, but don't know where your proofs and refutations are supposed to be -- if they do, in fact, exist...
- What we desperately need is a separate page for collecting said proofs and refutations.
- Such a separate page would be hard, if not impossible, to produce over here, but we could easily produce it over at http://shrouddebates.com/ -- if you can actually provide the "whereabouts" of these different proofs and refutations.
- If you wish, I can find the last several such claims you have made and thereby give you a beginning list with which to work.
--- Jabba
- You guys believe that you have already proved or refuted (somewhere back in these 78 pages) all sorts of claims.
- It so happens that I disagree with most, if not all, of these claims, but don't know where your proofs and refutations are supposed to be -- if they do, in fact, exist...
- What we desperately need is a separate page for collecting said proofs and refutations.
- Such a separate page would be hard, if not impossible, to produce over here, but we could easily produce it over at http://shrouddebates.com/ -- if you can actually provide the "whereabouts" of these different proofs and refutations.
- If you wish, I can find the last several such claims you have made and thereby give you a beginning list with which to work.
--- Jabba
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Evidence Against Catbon Dating
- I'm trying to determine which relevant articles are peer reviewed, and which are not.
- I've tried Google -- a number of times, but not Google scholar.
- Thanks.
--- Jabba
Pakeha,
- I'm trying to determine which relevant articles are peer reviewed, and which are not.
- I've tried Google -- a number of times, but not Google scholar.
- Thanks.
--- Jabba
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Well, perhaps you could start with the fact that three different labs have dated the shroud to the 14th century.
We all know the 'invisible patch' hypothesis is untenable to explain this.
We all know the 'contamination' hypothesis is, too.
How many times do you need to read why?
What hypothesis is left?
Conspiracy?
Seriously, Jabba. What possible explanation is left on the table?
It's not a belief, it's a fact that's easily verified by merely reading the thread. That you're attempting to paint it as mere belief demonstrates further attempts to discredit arguments rather than dealing with them, in an attempt to establish a false equivalency.Jabba said:
YOU THOUGHT THAT RADIOMETRIC DECAY WAS LINEAR. I'm sorry, but when you demonstrate such an abysmal understanding of the system your opinion is completely meaningless. You don't know enough to have an opinion. The rest of your disagreements are just as bad. And you've yet to offer a valid refutation of anything, which is the only thing that really matters--opinions are without value, only data are worth discussing.
They're in this bloody thread.
My head hurts now....
You're out-right lying now, Jabba. You know perfectly well what our refutations are, where they are, etc. We've provided links, and arguments, and professional experience. WE HAVE REFUTED YOUR ARGUMENTS THOROUGHLY AND COMPLETELY. Your transparent attempts to somehow paint the picture that we've failed to do so would shatter your credibility if any of us still thought you had any.
I'm sorry, but that really makes me mad. I'll admit I haven't devoted a huge chunk of time to this thread (your arguments aren't that hard to refute), but others have and it is exceedingly disrespectful to the other people in this argument to simply ignore the work they've done. It's not something someone interested in honest debate would even attempt.
Jabba, how many years (decades?) have you supposedly been gathering information about the Shroud? You even claim to have a website documenting this information.
In all these years or decades, has it ever once occurred to you, you with the failing memory, that you could put all these rebuttals somewhere so you can respond consistently to all the arguments? The arguments always hinge on the Carbon 14 dating, you claim to have valid counters to the C14 results, yet never have these arguments at hand. Troll is the only excuse.
In all these years or decades, has it ever once occurred to you, you with the failing memory, that you could put all these rebuttals somewhere so you can respond consistently to all the arguments? The arguments always hinge on the Carbon 14 dating, you claim to have valid counters to the C14 results, yet never have these arguments at hand. Troll is the only excuse.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Maybe it would be a good idea to post up the evidence 'that addresses the process' that you feel hasn't been falsified here.
And, of course, explain why our posts haven't refuted that evidence.
davefoc
Philosopher
Hello Pierson5 and welcome,
With respect to entry 39 and 45
I think this may refer to entries in the addendum to the list you linked to (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf). I looked at entries 6, 7 and 13 in the addendum with the idea that they might correspond to the entries 39 and 45 you referred to.
None of these entries offers any evidence that the C14 sample area was patched. They do include the fact that the C14 test protocol was changed. I think this is an accepted fact with regard to the C14 testing of the shroud. Nothing about that is evidence that the testing as done was not accurate and reliable.
General comment about the main list with 32 entries that Pierson5 linked to
This is a long list and without considerable effort it is difficult to know what the list consists of and what it's value is with regard to the reliability of the C14 testing. If the entries are well thought out, intellectually honest arguments then it might be provide powerful evidence that the C14 testing was in error. If the list consists of cherry picked evidence with analysis slanted to finding any tiny shred of a plausible claim that the C14 testing was in error then it is just a routine screed done by shroud authenticity believers that has no probative value as to the reliability of the C14 testing.
I am not going to take the time to figure out which it is, but if there is somebody that wanted to go through the list and find what they believe is analysis or evidence that supports the claim that the C14 testing was in error I at least would look at it and I suspect several other people that have participated in this thread might also.
I did arbitrarily pick one of the entries to look at in detail. This was item 32, the last entry in the list. This is a reference to this 1997 paper, "A problematic source of organic contamination of linen". The claim is that a large discrepancy between the carbon dating of a mummified Ibis and the cloth that it was wrapped in points to the possibility of errors in C14 dating. It is true that the authors did report this discrepancy but they went on to explain possible explanations for the error including the possibility that the Ibis in question had eaten food sources that had higher than normal old carbon ratios. This would be true if the Ibis had eaten from marine food sources or apparently some snails that live in fresh water. The authors didn't think that these possibilities were likely but they thought that additional testing was necessary to determine the cause of the discrepancy. They mentioned that they were pursuing this testing and they ended the paper with this comment:
Clearly listing the results of this study without the cautionary information supplied by the authors bordered on intellectually dishonest. Not following up to see what the results of further study by these authors on this issue demonstrated that the authors of the list were not trying to thoroughly investigate possible support for their claim that the C14 testing was unreliable. Perhaps more importantly they didn't mention that the control samples used in the shroud C14 testing included cloth samples of known age that the C14 testing were able to date reliably. They also didn't make note of the fact that even the discrepancy found by the authors of the study was less than half of the discrepancy necessary to explain the size of a C14 error that would be required if the shroud actually dated from early in the first century. And finally the author of the list did not include the estimate of the ratio of the mass of the bioplastic coating to actual cloth that would be required to cause a C14 error that would erroneously have found the shroud to be date from the 13th century instead of the first. From the paper that entry 32 referenced:
The bottom line here is that what I found when I looked at an entry in the list is a cherry picked, intellectually dishonest summary of a scientific paper. If the list consisted of 31 other entries like this then it does not offer any probative value as to the reliability of the C14 testing. It is just the kind of slanted, non-object analysis that true believers can produce on any issue.
ETA:
(both the items linked to below have been linked to before. I put the links here for the benefit of any people just joining the discusssion)
Link to a discussion between Roger Sparks and William Meacham on the shroud C14 testing
http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm
Link to a summary of the shroud C14 test results
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
Last edited:
We absolutely do NOT need any such "pages of proofs and refutations" re. "all sorts of claims" from you. And most definitely not with you yet again trying to take charge of proceedings and move everyone over to a Christian shroud website.
And as has been pointed out to you at least 100 times here (and that does literally mean 100 times!
) - all the other claims from you are perfectly pointless if you cannot refute the C14 dates ...... and we already established that you certainly could not refute the C14, because you were never able to produce even one independent scientist who has ever disputed the C14 in a genuine mainstream scientific research journal.
If you did have a publication like that, say from one of the original C14 scientists saying that he now doubted their original results and explaining the reasons for such doubts in say Nature or Radiocarbon, then that would be some evidence to consider against the C14 dates ... but you do not have anything remotely like that to even consider.
... in fact on the absolute contrary - at different times, the C14 scientists have themselves explained why various claims such as "carbon contamination" are complete & utter nonsense.
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
Pierson5,
Please ask your friend why the Catholic Church, which has everything to gain if the shroud is authentic, agrees with the science on the C14 dating. The Church owns the shroud and it would be a huge help for them in increasing membership and fundraising if the shroud were authentic. Jabba will not venture a guess as to why they agree with the C14 dating. Does your friend have any ideas?
Ward
Please ask your friend why the Catholic Church, which has everything to gain if the shroud is authentic, agrees with the science on the C14 dating. The Church owns the shroud and it would be a huge help for them in increasing membership and fundraising if the shroud were authentic. Jabba will not venture a guess as to why they agree with the C14 dating. Does your friend have any ideas?
Ward
Thanks everyone for the warm welcomes.
I will take a look through the previous pages and see what I can dig up. Everyone's responses have made a lot of sense so far. I was unfamiliar with the topic until my friend brought it up, so I was in no way familiar with the literature for/against the authenticity.
Thanks again for the responses, I'll get back to you guys.
I will take a look through the previous pages and see what I can dig up. Everyone's responses have made a lot of sense so far. I was unfamiliar with the topic until my friend brought it up, so I was in no way familiar with the literature for/against the authenticity.
Thanks again for the responses, I'll get back to you guys.
A lot of us on this thread started the same way.
Good luck slogging through it--I can certainly understand that 80 pages is quite a task!Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
A pattern is forming
If you're going to pretend that this entire thread doesn't exist it would probably be best if you stopped posting in it.
If you're going to pretend that this entire thread doesn't exist it would probably be best if you stopped posting in it.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Uhh, twenty years of research, and "you lost the link"? That's even less plausible than the ToS.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
YOU titled your post "Game Plan".
That is revealing in and of itself.
Your transparent attempts to control debate, well, they are transparent. It matters not a whit where the debate occurs, except to you. Why is that?
You already tried that here, and in fairness, some here went to your venue where you got royally toasted. Why do you think repeating the exercise would yield any different result?
That is revealing in and of itself.
Wrong. The proof and refutations were real. It is nobodies issue if you refuse to accept the evidence facing you.
This is just further evidence that you have not read the responses.
Here it is. We are in it. What makes you think that rehashing the same rubbish in a different thread will yield a different result? After all, you know full well that the same arguments will be put forth and you will lose just as badly.
Your transparent attempts to control debate, well, they are transparent. It matters not a whit where the debate occurs, except to you. Why is that?
You already tried that here, and in fairness, some here went to your venue where you got royally toasted. Why do you think repeating the exercise would yield any different result?
Here. In this very thread. Not anybodies problem but yours if you don't read responses.
Sure. Sometime next century, no doubt.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
The problem is he's not doing methodical research. I suspect he's been doing a lot of reading in the echo chamber of shroudie websites, and to him that counts as "research". In a way it is, for I often do a lot of reading on a topic that suddenly captures my attention. But I don't keep careful notes on every book I read and every website I visit. It can get frustrating later when I want to make a point on a topic that I've read up on in the past but can no longer find a reference that supports the point I want to make.
It's possible (but doubtful) that here Jabba will learn a few things about how to conduct good research and keep notes.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
That may all be true. I have yet to see how the authenticity of the shroud, or not, has any impact on faith.
Who cares if the shroud is proven fake, if you are a true believer?
What kind of believer are you, if your faith resides in a piece of cloth?
What kind of believer are you that if the cloth is proven fake, then you must become an unbeliever?
But that is jabba. His faith requires that the touching cloth is true.
jabba does not believe his dog is all powerful.
- Status