However, if the Y but not the X is found, may we assume that Jesus was 0Y? I suppose that this genetic structure produces persons who are externally male but have underdeveloped testes, which would explain the absence of any sex life in Jesus' biography. By contrast with X0 females, may we assume that 0Y males develop very luxuriant beards? This would account very neatly for the Shroud image.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
How does the image of someone’s beard get on to a cloth shroud laid over their dead body for 2 days? Just asking?
Not by any normal means, to be sure. It has been suggested that the "Resurrection Event" which restored Jesus to life must have been accompanied by some sort of blast of radiation which seared an image, not only of his body - but of his hair and beard! - into the nearby cloth. I have the greatest difficulty with a radiation-emitting beard, but I'm no expert on how miracles work.How does the image of someone’s beard get on to a cloth shroud laid over their dead body for 2 days? Just asking?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Actually, the paint would have contained egg whites, which do contain DNA.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- While I was referring specifically to the blinding aspect of the control samples as being ineffective, I have to admit that I don't know how the control samples were otherwise effective -- I doubt that they would be used to test the accuracy of the labs doing the testing...
--- Jabba
--- Jabba
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Do you ever get anything right? Control are used to see if the equipment is in calibration and the entire anlytical method is performing as it should. What do you think they would be used for?
Don't even answer. You have no clue.
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
In other words, you are going to continue to assert that the procedures by which the 14C dates were established allowed the labs involved to cheat; to supplant the 'real' date with their conspiracy-fueled, bias-driven, unbeliever-supported bogus dates--and the sum total of your support for this scurrilous position is that you do not like the 14C dates determine byt three independent labs (two of which undertook an extra, above-and-beyond, blinding step).
The purpose, and effectiveness, of the control samples has been explained to you by people who use the same procedures, for the same reasons. The control samples were effective for their purpose, and provide even more support for the medieval date.
"Everyone involved" does NOT "accept" that the control samples were "ineffective"--and your continued weaseling about this dishonest claim you have made, without support, simply points out that all you have is that you do not like the medieval date. It seems you will continue to cheerfully discard anything that supports that date, no matter how low you need to stoop.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Control is that big lever on the side of the testing machine that allows you to fake a date.
Why does that matter? C14 control samples don't need to be blinded.
Given that you don't understand how C14 testing protocols work (or how C14 testing itself works) what makes you think your doubts are correct?
Did you read the posts explaining the purpose of control samples in C14 testing?
Belz...
Fiend God
I'm not sure even you know what you're saying, at this point.
Belz...
Fiend God
Jabba, do you intend on answering these questions ?
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
The blinding level (some blinding) was above what is normaly done for a normal 14C test (no blinding).
Only you , in your utter ignorance, wish to have had better blinding.
But we get it : you are gripping onto your faith and you will imagine anything to get a cop out rather than admit to the scientific results.
So let me understand you:
1. You have no idea, nor have you researched, why control samples were used in the C14 dating process.
2. You have no idea, nor have you researched, how control samples are used in radiocarbon dating protocols.
3. You 'doubt' that the control samples were used to test the laboratories' accuracy, even though that is the purpose of control samples in radiocarbon dating.
4. You cling to the idea that the samples should have been blinded, even though that was not part of the agreed protocol.
5. You ignore the fact that in two of the laboratories, the final calculations were done blinded.
6. You have not produced (and quite possibly have not contacted) anyone involved in the dating process who feels that the "control samples were ineffective".
7. Despite being asked to show evidence for even one person who was involved in the process holding the view that the control samples were ineffective, you have not done so.
8. Nevertheless, you still assert that "everybody" involved feels that the control samples were ineffective. You have absolutely no evidence for this, but you assert it anyway.
Would you quibble with any of those eight points, Jabba? And if not, can you see the paucity of your knowledge on this?
Will you now either substantiate (with evidence) that "everybody involved in the dating process accepted that the control samples were ineffective" or withdraw it, please. An apology to those who you have maligned would also be polite.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,829
Given that you are completely and utterly clueless about how any of this stuff works, who really cares what you "doubt" or not? You have not demonstrated that you have the first friggin clue about anything to do with the shroud, much less things like 14C dating methods. You have been schooled so many times over in this thread on technical matters involving the shroud, and, ultimately, if you cut through the nonsense chatter and formatting, all you have are accusations of conspiracy at best, although you continually dance around the direction where we all know you need to end up going at the end, to the miracle.
I have to admit, I have learned a lot in this thread about the shroud, stuff I never knew before. Unfortunately, not a single lick of it has come from anything you have said. Of all the things about this thread that continue to amaze me is how someone who claims to have been researching the shroud for 20 years and has a website dedicated to the authenticity of the shroud can be so completely ignorant of it, and is completely out of his league when talking to "hobbyists" who hang out at the JREF site. I realize this crowd is a select bunch, but come on, this hasn't even been close.
So I've continued to read this thread because I know there are things to learn from the others, but this comment here just has gone too far for me. You are immune to reality, it is that simple.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
How can you be specific about something of which you lack even a basic general knowledge?
You don't really have to admit it.
It's hardly a bloody secret.
You make this point as though it has some bearing on the discussion.
It doesn't.
Doubt away to your heart's content, Jabba. Reality will still be here when you get back.
Doubts are only relevant when one adequately understands the system in question. As you have demonstrated that you do not have (according to California standards) a high-school gradulate's level of understanding of C14 dating, your doubts are meaningless. This is nothing more than the Creationist favorite: Argument from Personal Ignorance.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,829
I kind of went off in my response up above, but I think it can be summarized in the following: why does Jabba think anyone gives a hoot what he "doubts"?
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,042
Jabba's continual, innuendo laden, references to the blinding of the shroud samples says far more about him and his desperate need to cling to the magic cloth than anything else.
JabbaPapa
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 260
FWIW, I've found one paper from the scientist who did the alternative dating.
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
It's NOT the paper where he provides the dating, but it does provide his chemical analyses suggesting that the samples used in the carbon dating were chemically dissimilar to the general body of the artefact.
He does mention some of his reasons for disputing the dating of the Shroud in his paper, but this is not where he provides the alternative dating that I've mentioned.
I do NOT understand any of the Chemistry, nor do I pretend so -- but at least I've remembered now that it is the age of the vanillin that is referred to in his dating.
I'm on the trail of it now anyway, and hopefully will be able to link you to the paper in question in the fairly near future.
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
It's NOT the paper where he provides the dating, but it does provide his chemical analyses suggesting that the samples used in the carbon dating were chemically dissimilar to the general body of the artefact.
He does mention some of his reasons for disputing the dating of the Shroud in his paper, but this is not where he provides the alternative dating that I've mentioned.
I do NOT understand any of the Chemistry, nor do I pretend so -- but at least I've remembered now that it is the age of the vanillin that is referred to in his dating.
I'm on the trail of it now anyway, and hopefully will be able to link you to the paper in question in the fairly near future.
Last edited:
- Status