Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Rich:
What do you think it means when you read that the labs cleaned the samples of linen before testing them?
Why is there no evidence of any 'reweaving"?
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Rich:
What do you think it means when you read that the labs cleaned the samples of linen before testing them?
Why is there no evidence of any 'reweaving"?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Hugh,
- Per usual, I need to deal with one small issue at a time.
- But as you say, the labs probably knew well in advance the general area from where the sample would be taken. But then, it seems to me that doing carbon dating on the shroud would have been so important to them that ultimately, they would take whatever they could get and not complain about it.
--- Jabba
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for sharing that with the thread.
Would you mind asking your correspondent how much contamination would be needed to alter the 14C dating?
As pakeha said, please ask how much contamination would be present (a rough estimate is good enough; as long as we're in the correct order of magnitude it'll suffice).Russ Breault said:
The second question is, what KIND of contamination would there be? What I mean is, he needs to provide a discussion of the isotopic ratios in the contamination. These aren't terribly hard to find; C14 calibration curves have been in the news a bit lately (well, among the news outlets I, and anyone else interested in C14 dating, frequent).
The third question is, what methods of cleaning would satisfy Russ Breault. I'm hoping he hasn't read the C14 reports, though I doubt that's true. The reason is, I want to compare what he thinks is adequate against what the labs did.
Finally, I'd like an explanation for why there is this concern over the shroud, but not other artifacts. We have other examples of ancient cloth, wood, and other organic material that have been dated, and no one seems concerned about possible contamination in them. I'd like to know why.
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
No, no, that's exactly what I didn't say. They knew there would be only one piece, but the position seems not to have been thought about at all.
Well, that's more than I know. What was important to the burgeoning science of AMS dating was to demonstrate the accuracy of their method, as well as publicising it. Had they thought there was a likelihood of their being inaccurate through no fault of their own, I think Damon and Donahue and the rest would have said so, simply because any later test would have demonstrated that their method was faulty.
Belz...
Fiend God
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
It would be a change of pace if you actually dealt with any issue, but anyway....
This is you spinning things, and painting a picture of scientists and C14 labs slavering at the chops to get there dirty hands on a piece of the shroud in order to nail the bleevers that they hate so much.
Nothing could be further from the truth, the C14 labs that were brought in were brought in to do a professional job, and they did it. Those labs had no vested interest in any particular result. If the revealed date had turned out to be 33 AD, they would not have cared a bit, because that would still be proof of nothing wrt Jebus.
BTW, Happy birthday. As a gift, I leave you this thought. Even if the shroud turned out to be made from modern polystyrene, it would still say nothing about your faith, or anyone elses. Think on that.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Pakeha,
- Prior to the dating, the labs would have been worried about contamination affecting the accuracy of the dating in general -- they wouldn't have been focused on 1300 years of contamination. That's why it seems likely to me that they would have rejected that corner -- if they had the option.
- After the dating, the potential for contamination being responsible for the “differential” found, does seem too small to worry about -- but then, the possible need for some sort of REPAIR in that corner (given the likely amount of handling) does seem significant, and the possibility of near invisible repair (given the research claiming evidence of such repair within and around the sample) also seems significant to me. Consequently, I don’t think that we can just dismiss the near invisible patch explanation.
- I’m not saying that the sample IS comprised of (or even just includes) a near invisible patch – but, I am saying that such is still a reasonable possibility (amongst several other reasonable possibilities re weakness in the dating process …).
- And again, for the moment, I’m just trying to show “direct” evidence of reasonable doubt re the rigor of the overall dating process, so that you guys will consider my “indirect” evidence -- which, I think, is my conclusive evidence.
- So, I still claim that there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the rigor of that process. I consider the above possibility as one of the pieces of reasonable doubt.
--- Jabba
Except that the contamination was easily removable via standard lab techniques, thus rendering it irrelevant.Jabba said:
This is based on nothing but wishful thinking. We've already demonstrated that no such patching is present in this shroud.
So you're still playing CSI: Jerusalem.
Your Honor, I object to Jabba's use of the term "direct". His evidence in no way directly contradicts anything known about the shroud, and instead relies upon insinuation and implication rather than actual evidence. I move that his arguments be stricken from the record.
That's why they cleaned it. And I don't think "worried" is the right word. Testing old things is what they do, they know how to go about it.
What 1300 years of contamination?
Nonsense.
There is no invisible patch. Not only is it technically impossible, it's also completely implausible that they'd go to that bother for a corner, and then stick blatant patches across the body of the cloth.
Then why do you keep mentioning it? And if it's not that, what is wrong with the dating?
You can say it as much as you like, it doesn't make it so.
What weaknesses?
You call wishful thinking "direct evidence"?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
A good point.
What the labs were interested in was showing the accuracy of AMS dating.
Jabba, this doesn't address my question at all.
How much contamination would be required to skew the dating?
And Jabba, please present some evidence of semi-demi invisible patching. Up til now, you haven't and it's getting difficult to believe you take the notion seriously.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Kindly state:
- what form your magical "contamination" takes
- how much was deposited
- why the multiple cleaning techniques we've explained to you (at length) would be be ineffective in removing it
- how such contamination could cause the error you claim exists in the radiocarbon dating
- why the numerous experts who studied the shroud, before, during and after the sampling, along with those who planned the cleaning of the samples, missed this contamination
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Rich:
In what way is it not disrespectful for you to continue to ignore my questions, even when they are directly addressed to issues you raise?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9270928#post9270928
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Thinking? About established facts? You must be new to this "debate" :-D
Greetings,
Chris
That's from me. If you assume that the dating is wrong due to contamination, and that the shroud is actually from the time Jesus supposedly lived, you need to account for contamination that would result in an error of 1,300 years, plus or minus a bit.zooterkin said:
Mister Earl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
Jabba, the main reason you're getting into so much trouble here is that your whole premise is built on a giant foundation of "ifs" and "maybes". You say IF the shroud corner was not representative and IF there was some kind of contamination and IF the scientists would have preferred other sites and IF somehow the scientists were colluding to lie and IF there was problem with the dating, then MAYBE they would have gotten a wrong answer.
Which is fine. But when the others on this board start addressing those points individually, you handwave it away and say, "I'm trying to do one thing at a time."
But you're not. You're bringing in these other hypotheticals, treating them as if they were fact in your argument, and then handwaving away the evidence others spent their own valuable time on to bring to you to show you that you are wrong.
I think what you want to do here is invent a scenario where possibly the dating was somehow wrong without the tiresome burden of having someone question it, or without having to provide evidence of your assertions. I think that's very dishonest of you. If you bring in other hypotheticals to support your main argument, then you should be willing to back those up. "One thing at a time" doesn't cut it when you bring it into the mix in the first place.
Which is fine. But when the others on this board start addressing those points individually, you handwave it away and say, "I'm trying to do one thing at a time."
But you're not. You're bringing in these other hypotheticals, treating them as if they were fact in your argument, and then handwaving away the evidence others spent their own valuable time on to bring to you to show you that you are wrong.
I think what you want to do here is invent a scenario where possibly the dating was somehow wrong without the tiresome burden of having someone question it, or without having to provide evidence of your assertions. I think that's very dishonest of you. If you bring in other hypotheticals to support your main argument, then you should be willing to back those up. "One thing at a time" doesn't cut it when you bring it into the mix in the first place.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Like hell you're not. You've said it repeatedly for the last year, but you couch it in weasel words so your claims can't be falsified (or so you seem to think). A near invisible patch is not a reasonable possibility because there is no evidence for it, and experts looked for such things.
NO.YOU.ARE.NOT. You are trying to convince some invisible audience of lurkers who know even less than you about the subjects at hand.
Maybe you think that if you keep this kind of mind-numbing irrational palaver up for another year, you'll have driven-off anyone willing to dispute your nonsensical arguments, and can then claim victory by default.
You have presented no evidence - much less conclusive evidence.
Why isn't there a facepalm emote?
So your suggestion is that they were so eager to date the shroud, that they wouldn't have cared if the sample they were given was completely useless for dating the shroud?
- Status