Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akhenaten]

Pakeha,

- Up until a week ago (#3308), I had been addressing the evidence re the carbon dating pretty steadily. Since that time, I've made only four posts (not counting this one) -- one about the carbon dating (3379), one asking for computer help (3309), one just passing on my post over on the Porter blog (3371) and one about "Effective Debate" (3406, my current choice for sub-thread (your choice of sub-thread being "Carbon Dating")) and trying to answer the many claims that I ignore points for which I don't have answers.
- Probably, the real problem here has to do with the sparsity of time I've had to devote to this thread for the last couple of months. I won't bother with excuses for now.
- Anyway, my next post (with just a little bit of luck) will be something that I thought I had already posted, but apparently not. It will be about carbon dating/evidence against/peer-reviewed.

- Thanks for reminding me. I needed that.

--- Jabba

That you prefer to spend most of your time discussing the discussion at the expense of dealing with the single issue of presenting proper evidence for why we should doubt the reliability of the C14 dating is probably your biggest problem, although there are many others.

And on and on it goes, ad infinitum . . .

 

[Dinwar]

- Up until a week ago (#3308), I had been addressing the evidence re the carbon dating pretty steadily.

You were dancing all around the issue, I'll grant you that. First you went off on some random tangent about how blood on the shroud invalidated the C14 dating, as if blood only existed in the 1st century. Then you went off on another tangent about how there could have been a patch--ignoring the fact that we had already demonstrated that there was no evidence to support such an assertion and that even if there were, given the techniques your sources claimed were used it wouldn't matter anyway. You have yet to actually address the C14 issue. You have never commented on the methods used, the principles behind the dating, the interpretation of the results, etc.

- Probably, the real problem here has to do with the sparsity of time I've had to devote to this thread for the last couple of months. I won't bother with excuses for now.

No. I didn't know anything about French reweaving. Took me an hour to learn why you were wrong. Maybe two (but part of that was seeing if it was something I could do for an SCA project). You've had TWENTY YEARS to study this subject, according to you. You don't get to claim that you've run out of time.

It will be about carbon dating/evidence against/peer-reviewed.

Have you studied up on C14 dating? Because, to point it out again, you do not meet the California standards for a high school level of understanding of the subject from what you've posted here. And if you can't match the level expected of high schoolers, what on Earth makes you think you understand it better then the experts?

 

[pakeha]

Jabba, are you really not aware your points have been rebutted repeatedly, not only here, but over at the atheist forum?

Do you have any sort of defense for your view the C14 dating is unreliable?
Anything but the Bonnet-Eymard canard, I mean.

 

[carlitos]

Ward,

- My claim is that I ignore points ONLY because I can't keep up with them.

Is quoting yourself rude? 25th April, in post number 1188 of this thread:

Jabba,
Just answer the C14 question.

Still waiting.

Why not just choose one point then?
Why the C14 dating is unreliable, for example.
And stick to it.

It's not a complex debate. The C14 dating stands; you have admitted you can find no issues with it.

You have used this excuse before, you even asked for a single topic to pursue. When told to concentrate on the C14 data, you immediately started talking about the possibility of blood stains.

Exactly! Jabba, most of the last pages and pages in this thread have urged you to focus on one point, the 14C dating!

Jabba,
These points are exactly the reasons you have lost all credibility here. If you hope to restore your credibility please read and think about these points, and then either provide legitimate data that overturns the 14C results, or admit that you cannot.

This isn't a valid claim. For over a month the only issue we tried to get you to address with the C14 issue.

- Thanks for reminding me. I needed that.

--- Jabba

The paper gives a few examples of isotopic exchange which are unrelated to changing carbon atoms in the monomeric D-glucose.

But then:- (edited because the super and subscripts didn't copy and paste)

We propose the
reaction
14CO2 + Monomer <=> CO2 + 14C-Monomer (3)
in which one isotope 14C is exchanged by another isotope 12C

. As the 14C is so scarce, we will suppose
that a monomer only exchanges one isotope. The
Equation (3) has never been verified before and the results presented in the paper are all based on this supposition.

That you prefer to spend most of your time discussing the discussion at the expense of dealing with the single issue of presenting proper evidence for why we should doubt the reliability of the C14 dating is probably your biggest problem, although there are many others.

Exactly! Jabba, most of the last pages and pages in this thread have urged you to focus on one point, the 14C dating!

Jabba,
These points are exactly the reasons you have lost all credibility here. If you hope to restore your credibility please read and think about these points, and then either provide legitimate data that overturns the 14C results, or admit that you cannot.

This isn't a valid claim. For over a month the only issue we tried to get you to address with the C14 issue.

- Invisible patches are not invisible, and even if they exist, they will not impact the C14.

What amazes me is that there's even a thread on Shroud of Turin at this late date. Bottom line: Carbon 14 dating showed the cloth of the shroud is of medieval origin.

(ignoring the motivation of diverting attention away from C14)

Eg saying you want to consult other shroud believers, want us to tell you for 108th time why the C14 "debunks" the belief that the shroud is from 1st century,

And I am sure that he will be providing real evidence against the 14C dating.

And I could even write that without exploding in laughter

Jabba,

This is one of your most transparent attempts yet to avoid answering the one, simple question you refuse to answer: what is your scientific evidence that the 14C dating on the Shoud is incorrect.

I'd think that fire would concentrate C14 if anything. C14 is heavier than C12 or C13, and therefore less energy is necessary to make it fly away.

It's been 11 days and still nothing from you regarding the evidence of the C14 dating being incorrect. I think this proves you are avoiding the evidence.

Jabba,

I was self-appointed gatekeeper for 30minutes. I also asked you to just answer the 14C question. Still waiting. Does this confirm you are indeed avoiding the question?

The main problem with the fire hjypothesis is that it needs to bring in about 4 time as much foreign carbon loaded with fresh 14C than original carbon (about 20% original sample with 1st century origin and 80% fresh wood/combustible origin carbon). That is neigh impossible.

You were asked about the C14 dating.

'Evasion noted'

Don't take my comment about blood DNA as an invitation to avoid the C14 dating. That takes precedence. Focus your efforts on showing how that is wrong.

None of this has to do with C14 dating.

After being asked for the umpteenth time for argument against 14C published results , we are served a PDF FAQ from roger with dubious DNA claim in it, and "darknening" non peer reviewed claim out of the blue.

- I don't understand all this fussing.

 

[Jabba]

Excuses

Pakeha,

- Up until a week ago (#3308), I had been addressing the evidence re the carbon dating pretty steadily. Since that time, I've made only four posts (not counting this one) -- one about the carbon dating (3379), one asking for computer help (3309), one just passing on my post over on the Porter blog (3371) and one about "Effective Debate" (3406, my current choice for sub-thread (your choice of sub-thread being "Carbon Dating")) and trying to answer the many claims that I ignore points for which I don't have answers.
- Probably, the real problem here has to do with the sparsity of time I've had to devote to this thread for the last couple of months. I won't bother with excuses for now.
- Anyway, my next post (with just a little bit of luck) will be something that I thought I had already posted, but apparently not. It will be about carbon dating/evidence against/peer-reviewed.

- Thanks for reminding me. I needed that.

--- Jabba

-Turns out that I was right the first time -- I HAD already posted that thing about peer-reviewed. It was #3242.
- So what I'll do instead is follow up on that post and your comments to it. Seeya later.
--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[IanS]

Ward,

- My claim is that I ignore points ONLY because I can't keep up with them. If somehow, it was accepted that I deal with just one point at a time, you'd see that I would do my best to deal with it and would let you know when I had no further arguments regarding that point...

- It's the "keepin up" that has several different reasons (that I've tried to describe before), but the primary reason has to do with the natural tendency for debates to expand, and for complex debates to expand exponentially -- to grow new argument branches, with new branches off old branches, etc. While I try to address one branch, it grows branches of its own -- which I now need to address, and one at a time.
- What we see as "points" tend to be "living branches" -- growing and producing their on sets of new branches that need addressing.

- Before I try to be more explicit about what specifically has happened here, can you tell me why the above excuse doesn't "fly" for you? To the extent that I can read my own mind, it does fly for me.

- Thanks.
--- Jabba

Well then your claim is untrue. And you know it's untrue. Because you have made precisely that same claim several times before. And each time, everyone here has told you that the one and only point you need to respond to is to for you to produce some genuine research papers where real independent scientists have criticised the C14 results.

You have been asked for that literally 100 times!

You have failed utterly and completely to produce even one such genuine scientific paper.

It's completely useless for you to keep presenting, the amateur pseudo-science reports written by your fellow Christian shroud fanatics such as members of STURP and their friends. That is NOT "evidence" (it's self interested religious propoganda)!

 

[IanS]

-Turns out that I was right the first time -- I HAD already posted that thing about peer-reviewed. It was #3242.
- So what I'll do instead is follow up on that post and your comments to it. Seeya later.
--- Jabba

You are still not addressing the C14!!

Your posts are all 100% absurd lol

If you don’t have any genuine independent published scientists criticising the C14, then just say so! And say it clearly and honestly.

Then we can talk about why it is that you cannot find any such genuine papers against the C14.

Until you do that, you have absolutely nothing .

 

[pakeha]

-Turns out that I was right the first time -- I HAD already posted that thing about peer-reviewed. It was #3242.
- So what I'll do instead is follow up on that post and your comments to it. Seeya later.
--- Jabba

Great.
By the way, why don't you link to individual posts?

 

[Aepervius]

He spends all his time framing the argument rather than making the argument.

From all the debat I have been in, it is a symptom that one does not have an argument/evidence whatsoever, and thus they are trying to go for a retheoric victory, trying to blind the spectator and debater in process and words and try to hide the lack of good argument/evidence.

*shrug* but we all came to this conclusion a long time ago, we are now jsut trying to make jabba understand that rethoric without evidence won't cut it and he can drop the mask. Sadly sine all he has is the rethoric, he is cramping holding onto it as if the life of his belief depended onto it (and it probably does).

 

[archspoiler]

Welcome!

Highlighted: That's the funny thing about it all because, why should it? It is absolutely certain that fake relics flourished in the middle ages: We could build a house from the splinters of the cross in existence. So this particular relic, despite its traditionally high profile, means absolutely nothing for a belief in Jesus. Heck, if the guy existed, he died 2,000 years ago; why would we expect his burial scroud to exist, any more than his shoes?

I don't believe in Jesus, but if I did, the shroud of Turin would mean absolutely zero to me.

Hans

Hi Hans,

Sorry: I should have been clearer. I don't think Shroud "truth" is necessary for Christianity, just for Jabba personally. I "expect" that none of the relics is "real," because I consider the entire Christian fiasco to be unmitigated rubbish. The same 85+ pages could be wasted discussing splinters of the true cross, mary magdelene's skull, or St Francis' willy: the basic belief system is completely irrational. Jabba is certainly that, given the pages of honest dismissal of every one of his wishful claims....

Anyway, I'll check back in after another 15 pages or so: my bet is that the "debate" will have gotten nowhere.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Getting Past the Experts

Jabba:
- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...

...OK, then:

- Invisible patches are not invisible...

Hans,
- According to SOME of the experts, patches CAN be made to be ESSENTIALLY invisible (http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf -- page 2; and, http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Entry: #39), and as far as I can tell, we don't really know what "measurements" were taken by the experts on this small corner piece prior to the dating process, and Madame Flury-Lemberg implies that all she needed to do in order to determine if any reweaving has been done is to look -- with the naked eye -- at the back of the cloth.
- I guess that the question is whether or not the procedures carried out by the three C14 labs would have exposed such a patch... Seems like someone has argued that in the past, but I can't remember who, where or when. Any thoughts?
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

- According to SOME of the experts, patches CAN be made to be ESSENTIALLY invisible

Invisible to casual inspection. Careful examination--even by non-experts--always reveals the patch.

Essentially invisible=/=undetectable by fabric experts.

and as far as I can tell, we don't really know what "measurements" were taken by the experts on this small corner piece prior to the dating process, and Madame Flury-Lemberg implies that all she needed to do in order to determine if any reweaving has been done is to look

That's because that's all it takes. You seem to think that looking at things is somehow unscientific, but it's not--reweaving is always visible when the cloth is carefully inspected, and to say that she "just looked" is such a complete mischaracterization that it can be called a lie.

- I guess that the question is whether or not the procedures carried out by the three C14 labs would have exposed such a patch...

No, the question is when you're going to abandon the insane Patch of the Gaps notion.

Anyway, I'll check back in after another 15 pages or so: my bet is that the "debate" will have gotten nowhere.

You're not cynical enough. This debate going nowhere would be a major step forward--it's been going backwards almost since Jabba joined.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Jabba:
- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...
Hans,
- According to SOME of the experts, patches CAN be made to be ESSENTIALLY invisible (http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf -- page 2; and, http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Entry: #39), and as far as I can tell, we don't really know what "measurements" were taken by the experts on this small corner piece prior to the dating process, and Madame Flury-Lemberg implies that all she needed to do in order to determine if any reweaving has been done is to look -- with the naked eye -- at the back of the cloth.
- I guess that the question is whether or not the procedures carried out by the three C14 labs would have exposed such a patch... Seems like someone has argued that in the past, but I can't remember who, where or when. Any thoughts?
--- Jabba

Jabba,

Your first link seems broken, and in your second one you ask us to look at entry 39, but there are only 32 entries in the document. Before you fix the links, please make sure they do not refer to the reweaving techniques that use threads from other parts of the shroud. Otherwise, a patch would have no effect on the C14 dating and would in fact confirm that the entire shroud is Medieval.

Thanks,
Ward

 

[Dinwar]

Jabba,

Your first link seems broken, and in your second one you ask us to look at entry 39, but there are only 32 entries in the document. Before you fix the links, please make sure they do not refer to the reweaving techniques that use threads from other parts of the shroud. Otherwise, a patch would have no effect on the C14 dating and would in fact confirm that the entire shroud is Medieval.

Thanks,
Ward

In fact, such patches would be BETTER for C-14 dating than an unpatched area of the shroud. Such patches would in essence constitute a random sampling of the entire shroud, rather than one small location, thus eliminating any biases taht would affect only that area (mostly, contamination). So if the reweaving techniques used threads from the rest of the shroud that's a good thing as far as the science is concerned, and is actually stronger support for a 13th century date than if there was no patch.

 

[Akhenaten]

Carbon Dating/Sir Not Appearing In This Post

Jabba:
- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...

And your admission would matter one way or the other because ______________________ ?

Hans,
- According to SOME of the experts, patches CAN be made to be ESSENTIALLY invisible (http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf -- page 2; and, http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Entry: #39),

Those links are broken in one instance and to a non-existent entry in the other.

Is it any wonder you can't convince anyone of anything?

. . . and as far as I can tell, we don't really know what "measurements" were taken by the experts on this small corner piece prior to the dating process, and Madame Flury-Lemberg implies that all she needed to do in order to determine if any reweaving has been done is to look -- with the naked eye -- at the back of the cloth.

And?

- I guess that the question is whether or not the procedures carried out by the three C14 labs would have exposed such a patch... Seems like someone has argued that in the past, but I can't remember who, where or when.

Mad research skillz, Jabba.

Any thoughts?
--- Jabba

Gardening stills seems like it would be a more productive passtime for you.

 

[carlitos]

I'm absolutely shocked that Jabba didn't address the C14 in his latest post. Shocked.

This just appeared on Fox News, of all places.

2. The Shroud of Turin and Other Holy Relics

Though many believe that Italy's Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Jesus, there's compelling evidence the shroud is in fact a hoax, including a 1389 letter from French Bishop Pierre d'Arcisto Pope Clement stating that a painter confessed to creating it. Indeed, the Bishop's evidence was so convincing that even Pope Clement acknowledged it as a forgery — one of countless faked religious relics circulating at the time.

Carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin revealed it does not date back to the time of Christ but instead 14 centuries later — exactly when the forger confessed to making it. Even more damning for its authenticity, there is no record of its existence before then; if it really is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, it seems suspicious that no one knew anything about it for 1,300 years. Though many remain convinced of its authenticity, the historical and scientific evidence suggest the Shroud of Turin is probably a religious hoax. As researcher Joe Nickell noted in his book "Relics of the Christ" (The University Press of Kentucky, 2007),the shroud on display in Turin is only one of over 40 such Jesus shrouds — all claimed to be the real one.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm absolutely shocked that Jabba didn't address the C14 in his latest post. Shocked.

I'm pretty sure Jabba believes that he can claim that he has addressed the C14 issue by including the words "Carbon Dating" in his post titles, regardless of the actual content of the posts.

 

[Akhenaten]

Carbon Dating/Not Tonight, Josephine

Madame Flury-Lemberg implies that all she needed to do in order to determine if any reweaving has been done is to look -- with the naked eye -- at the back of the cloth.

Just a quick question on this for Jabba to ignore:

How is it proposed that reweaving which was invisible to the naked eye could be accomplished by reweavers who themselves had nothing more than their unaided eyesight?

 

[Dinwar]

How is it proposed that reweaving which was invisible to the naked eye could be accomplished by reweavers who themselves had nothing more than their unaided eyesight?

For some things it's not actually impossible. I've dabbled in nalbinding, which is sort of like crochet. One of the tricks an expert told me to do was to buy single-strand wool yarn. With that, you can actually fuse the ends of two strands together (it's the lanellin in the yarn, I believe, combined with the oils in your fingers and saliva and twisting--a simple process, but chemically fairly complicated). It's literally invisible to the naked eye, because you're connecting the threads in exactly the same way that the threads themselves were put together in the first place. This also makes nalbinding a pain in the rear--you have to FIND single-strand wool yarn, or a sheep and someone to spin it (I'm horrible at spinning--too much time working on maille armor, my fingers don't work the right way).

My point is, it's not entirely possible for such a process to occur. That said, the shroud isn't made of the right materials and you really can't use the techniques I know on a cloth. It's not reweaving, it's something you do while making the cloth.