pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I'm convinced there's potential for a tv mini-series there.
Or perhaps just an episode of Sherlock.
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
I'm convinced there's potential for a tv mini-series there.
Or perhaps just an episode of Sherlock.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Hugh,
- I'll try again. This one seems like a no-brainer -- but hey, you never know.
- You agree that the Church made the final decision, but that the scientists were basically happy with the Church's decision.
- If I got that right, I have a couple more questions about this particular "sub-issue."
--- Rich
Belz...
Fiend God
"Wahoo ! Someone agrees with me maybe ! I must be right, at last !"
You've yet to demonstrate any relevance this has or any experience or knowledge of standard sample site selection techniques. You've discounted the contributions the scientists made to the Church's decision. You've basically swept 10 years of discussion under the rug, in an attempt to make the choice sem arbitrary.Jabba said:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
"I shall now proceed to ask him the same question over and over again because 'I don't entirely agree with everything you've said' multiplied by one hundred equals 'I completely agree with your entire hypothesis.'"
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
Yes. Well, sort of. What was the two-hour argument about, I wonder?
Flight of Fancy coming up...
Riggi (a scientist, waving his scissors about): We should take a sample from underneath one of the larger patches, so that the appearance of the shroud is maintained.
Gonella (a scientist): We can't help that. The patches cover mostly charred material and we must take the sample well away from possible contamination.
Riggi (a scientist):But then we should have to take a very small bit, whereas we could cut quite a long strip from under a patch, and there's no reason why being burnt should affect the carbon dating.
Gonella (a scientist): Scraps of charcoal from other sources will be indistinguishable from charred shroud and would affect the dating. We will take as small as possible, but as large as necessary. If we take it from the already damaged Raes corner it will cause minimum disruption to the appearance.
Riggi (a scientist): Not all the material under the patches is charred, and we could easily trim away all the charred fragments both from the shroud and from any other contaminents. Anyway that corner is covered in greasy fingerprints and will be just as contaminated as a piece under a patch.
Donahue (a scientist): Do get a move on. I've got a plane to catch. We can easily clean off any contamination wherever you cut it from.
... and so on for 115 minutes ...
Archbishop (the custodian): This has gone on long enough. It's my decision and I support Gonella.
Tite (a scientist): Thank God for that.
Riggi (a scientist): It will ruin the shroud, but if you insist... [he measures out an 81mm x 16mm strip and cuts it out].
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,820
This is the disturbing part.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Jabba's claims about who selected the section to test are correct.
And? How does that lead to a mistake in the date obtained by 14C?
The only thing I can come up with is conspiracy or incompetence. Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever it is, come out with it. Don't hide behind veiled implications, make that accusation.
I realize Jabba has already hinted that the scientists MUST be biased against an early date because....wait a minute. Why were they biased against an early date again? Because as we have explained, there is absolutely no reason to think they should be invested in a later date, since, as scientists, they are well aware that even if it had an early date, it does not prove anything about Jesus.
But all this talk about who selected the sample just begs the question, why does it matter? There must be some reason why it matters who picked it, right? I'd like to hear what difference that makes.
As long as there's no proof of patching, the site makes no difference. It's all the same cloth; one bit is every bit as good as any other bit.pgwenthold said:
Jabba seems to be laboring under the belief that sampling is some complex thing that requires tremendous thought and consideration. The reality is quite the opposite. In my experience yes, you have sampling plans--but the selection is often extremely arbitrary. Someone looks at a map and says "Sample here." I've had to tell managers "I can't sample here; the site no longer exists" before. I've also had to say "I can't sample here, there's a building here now." Once a guy I know had to say "I can't sample here, the drill rig lit on fire" (army bases are fun). There is a tremendous amount of discression allowed the scientist directing the sampling efforts, because everyone who's taken any samples knows that there are going to be a huge number of factors that can't be known until you're actually taking the sample.
What really happens is that we get a general area to sample--say, "Take three samples from the corner of the shroud" in this case. Then it's up to the scientist directing the sampling to select the precise area to sample, given what they encounter in the medium being sampled. The sample plan sets the limits of what is considered a valid sample, and the simple truth is that the samples are generally taken at an arbitrary point within those limits.
This is the most confusing aspect to me. I, for one, started off with no dog in this fight. I'd be perfectly happy whatever date was spat out of the machine. I had no problem, before reading the C14 dating results, with the cloth being a 1st century cloth--I've seen older, after all. And, frankly, I expect some of the scientists were religious (it's not terribly uncommon, even among archaeologists).
But really, the bias I've seen from labs is a desire for accuracy. They will refuse to accept samples that they don't think will provide accurate results. It makes the labs look bad, particularly after the Mt. St. Helens thing. These people don't care what the implications of their dating are--they want to make sure that the dating is right, at the cost of even doing business. I've been told "We will not take your samples" by dating labs before. I know of one lab (though I forget which one off hand) that was sent lab techs because they were screwing up and the rest of the dating labs got annoyed. It makes no sense that people who are that focused on the quality of their analysis would simply throw that entire culture out the window in order to fudge an enormously high profile sample.
Belz...
Fiend God
Pfft... Jabba's faith-based desires trump your evidence-based reality.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,820
Yeah, I know that. However, Jabba apparently thinks it is important. I am asking him to explain why it matters.
The argument seems to be
a) Scientists selected the sample to measure,
therefore
b) The measured date is questionable
I am asking for someone to connect the dots for me. Preferably, Jabba, since it seems to be his thing.
Even if he goes with the invisible patch crap, the problem then comes to, if the patch is so bloody invisible that no one can detect it, why does it matter who selected the sample? Unless, of course, the implication is that the people who selected the sample KNEW that there was an invisible patch, and therefore deliberately chose that section and have subsequently lied about there being one. When it comes to the invisible patch explanation, that is the ONLY way that it matters who selected the sample. If it is inadvertent, with a truly undetectable patch, then anyone is just as likely to choose it.
Fair enough. My post was really just intended to demonstrate that there's no logical way out for him at this point. The best way out is the patch idea--which has been debunked so many times that it's a running joke in this thread anymore.pgwenthold said:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
If the patch was invisible then the only way to pick it out would be for someone to have secret knowledge about where it was.
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
Unless I'm misunderstanding badly, your (a) is the opposite of Jabba's argument. Look at this:
and this:
I don't know if (b) is Jabba's argument, or if it derives from either version of (a). Perhaps we'll find out.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,820
Doesn't matter. So if it's not the scientists who picked the sample and was the church reps, then it must be the church who is responsible for the conspiracy of the invisible patch, because it's obvious that the church wanted it to be a fake, or something like that.
I don't care who he thinks did it, I want to know why it matters who choose the sample.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,820
Exactly. Therefore, the "invisible patch" claim requires a conspiracy. Right, Jabba?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Sample Selection
- Here's how I see the relevancy of what I've been doing.
1) I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in. We need to keep narrowing our focus until we run out of sub-issues in the particular branch being followed. Tedious, but necessary.
2) You guys wanted me to focus on the carbon dating and why I thought it was wrong.
3) I explained that what I considered to be my primary reasons for thinking it wrong, was what I called "indirect" evidence -- the date the dating determined. I don't think it would have been possible for a 14th century artisan to have created such a piece of art (I have several reasons for thinking that).
4) But, you guys wanted me to give what "direct" evidence I had -- i.e., what I found wrong, or weak, with the dating process itself.
5) I claimed that there was plenty of reasonable doubt about the validity of the overall process -- which was, according to you guys, what I needed in order to allow my indirect evidence to be entered.
6) I believed that one piece of reasonable doubt was provided by the sample selected. I believed that the piece selected was not representative of the greater shroud.
7) One possible explanation for it not being representative of the greater shroud, was that it was actually made up of a patch -- truly invisible, or invisible to the naked eye as well as to whatever study to which it was subjected prior to, and during, the dating.
8) The truly invisible patch seemed like a possibility until we found out that such a patch would utilize only undamaged threads from the shroud, itself, and consequently, should have no effect on the date determined.
9) I retraced my steps back to the almost-invisible possibility and found several sources claiming to have uncovered evidence of patching.
10) No one here seemed to accept this as serious evidence, so I figured that this was a place where I would just have to agree to disagree.
11) Shortly before that time, a few of you began to claim, or imply, that the area sampled was determined by 10 years of thought and discussion, and was selected in large part by the involved scientists.
12) I then claimed that I thought that the church selected the number and location of the sample(s), and that the scientists were basically just stuck with the Church's decision.
13) I then read something by William Meacham claiming that the carbon dating labs were happy to restrict the study to one small area, so as to avoid outliers and doubts.
14) That sounded reasonable to me.
15) So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and to those representing the carbon dating labs.
- This is all relevant in that it has to do with the weaknesses that I perceive in the 10 years of the carbon dating process.
--- Jabba
- Here's how I see the relevancy of what I've been doing.
1) I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in. We need to keep narrowing our focus until we run out of sub-issues in the particular branch being followed. Tedious, but necessary.
2) You guys wanted me to focus on the carbon dating and why I thought it was wrong.
3) I explained that what I considered to be my primary reasons for thinking it wrong, was what I called "indirect" evidence -- the date the dating determined. I don't think it would have been possible for a 14th century artisan to have created such a piece of art (I have several reasons for thinking that).
4) But, you guys wanted me to give what "direct" evidence I had -- i.e., what I found wrong, or weak, with the dating process itself.
5) I claimed that there was plenty of reasonable doubt about the validity of the overall process -- which was, according to you guys, what I needed in order to allow my indirect evidence to be entered.
6) I believed that one piece of reasonable doubt was provided by the sample selected. I believed that the piece selected was not representative of the greater shroud.
7) One possible explanation for it not being representative of the greater shroud, was that it was actually made up of a patch -- truly invisible, or invisible to the naked eye as well as to whatever study to which it was subjected prior to, and during, the dating.
8) The truly invisible patch seemed like a possibility until we found out that such a patch would utilize only undamaged threads from the shroud, itself, and consequently, should have no effect on the date determined.
9) I retraced my steps back to the almost-invisible possibility and found several sources claiming to have uncovered evidence of patching.
10) No one here seemed to accept this as serious evidence, so I figured that this was a place where I would just have to agree to disagree.
11) Shortly before that time, a few of you began to claim, or imply, that the area sampled was determined by 10 years of thought and discussion, and was selected in large part by the involved scientists.
12) I then claimed that I thought that the church selected the number and location of the sample(s), and that the scientists were basically just stuck with the Church's decision.
13) I then read something by William Meacham claiming that the carbon dating labs were happy to restrict the study to one small area, so as to avoid outliers and doubts.
14) That sounded reasonable to me.
15) So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and to those representing the carbon dating labs.
- This is all relevant in that it has to do with the weaknesses that I perceive in the 10 years of the carbon dating process.
--- Jabba
I've seen glaciers move faster.Jabba said:
No, it's unnecessary obfuscation on your part--nothing more than an attempt to avoid the fact that the C14 data disproves your pet hypothesis.
This idea has been discussed to death. No honest observer can possibly think that there is any validity to this idea anymore. Belief in a patch is proof of dishonesty in my opinion.
None of them credible, but you believed them anyway because they support your a priori conclusions.
And you understand so little about sampling protocols that you think these are mutually exclusive.
In other words, so long as we're willing to accept people who had no access to the data and who were irrelevant to the discussion.
The wording here is a naked attempt to force us to accept the pathetic excuses for researchers that you're going to dredge up. A process you demonstrably know nothing about and are not interested in learning to comprehend.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Oh, Rich:
I do not want you to accuse me of being "disrespectful", but none of that is "relevant" in that you are not competent to detect, much less judge, "weaknesses" in the 14C dating process.
Last edited:
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
I might be an idiot, but I can't make sense of Jabba verse 15
" So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and to those representing the carbon dating labs."
Could I get a translation of this, please?
" So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and to those representing the carbon dating labs."
Could I get a translation of this, please?
As long as Jabba perceives "science" and the "Church" as polar opposites, he will continue to believe that there is some kind of argument where the church is agitating for a 1st century date and science for a mediaeval date. I honestly do not know how we (the majority of posters on this thread) can get Jabba to see that the Church and science have never been in opposition; both 'sides' were eager to uncover the truth about the shroud, even if that meant it relinquishing the money-making/evangelical possibilities of owning the True Burial Shroud™. There is no conflict between the church and science; both are in pursuit of the truth, no matter what it is. After the carbon dating, the shroud was confirmed as being from the 14th century, and both science and the Catholic Church accepted this. There simply is no reliable or credible evidence against the 14th century date, and there is an massive mountain range of evidence supporting the 14th century date.
Truth is more important than any amount of idols and more important than false gods, but Jabba can not, or will not, accept truth because he remains wedded to the idea that the shroud is from the first century. For Jabba, the shroud is a god in itself - despite the Bible prohibition on worshipping idols, despite the Commandment against having no other god but YHWH, and despite John 8:32.
Jabba (and other shroudies, he's by no means the only one, but he's here and the rest are not) are happy to wilfully blind themselves to every fact that conflicts with their skewed worldview. If he is not willing to accept reality, I fear that there is little or nothing that anyone can do to bring him back from the comforting fantasyland he inhabits, because he is choosing to live his whole life as a lie. Unless he is open to choosing reality instead of fantasy, nothing any of us can say or do can pull him out of the pit he has chosen.
And as it appears he now has everybody bar hughfarey on ignore, we may as well piss into the wind for all the good it will do to reply to him. He's choosing not to listen and the only people we can reach now are the lurkers.
So sad. Sad, and frustrating that a seemingly educated, literate and articulate person can choose such a fake worldview.
Truth is more important than any amount of idols and more important than false gods, but Jabba can not, or will not, accept truth because he remains wedded to the idea that the shroud is from the first century. For Jabba, the shroud is a god in itself - despite the Bible prohibition on worshipping idols, despite the Commandment against having no other god but YHWH, and despite John 8:32.
Jabba (and other shroudies, he's by no means the only one, but he's here and the rest are not) are happy to wilfully blind themselves to every fact that conflicts with their skewed worldview. If he is not willing to accept reality, I fear that there is little or nothing that anyone can do to bring him back from the comforting fantasyland he inhabits, because he is choosing to live his whole life as a lie. Unless he is open to choosing reality instead of fantasy, nothing any of us can say or do can pull him out of the pit he has chosen.
And as it appears he now has everybody bar hughfarey on ignore, we may as well piss into the wind for all the good it will do to reply to him. He's choosing not to listen and the only people we can reach now are the lurkers.
So sad. Sad, and frustrating that a seemingly educated, literate and articulate person can choose such a fake worldview.
Last edited:
True in this instance. Let's not get carried away.Agatha said:
It would be strange indeed if the Church couldn't handle a venerated relic becoming exposed as a fraud. They've only had a thousand years of practice. Give me a thousand years of practice and I'll break every Olympic record out there. Plus, there was the evidence that it wasn't from the 1st century, such as a bishop claiming that it was a forgery back in the Middle Ages (discussed several times up-thread).
I've got 189 pages of evidence that say otherwise.
Yes, you shared those reasons. And all of them were wrong. There is absolutely nothing that makes it impossible (or even UNLIKELY) for a 14th century artisan to create such a piece of art. Plus, as I've explained to you before (always without getting any response) it doesn't matter how unlikely it is. The C14 dating makes any other explanation completely impossible. "Unlikely" trumps "impossible".
Unless you have evidence that it was not representative, none of the rest of these "sub-issues" matter. You can imagine as many scenarios as you want for how a non-representative sample COULD have been chosen, but unless that actually happened you're just telling stories.
Or you could actually listen to what people are saying, and educate yourself on the relevant subjects. Just a thought.
You claiming something doesn't make it true, and it being true doesn't make it relevant, and it being relevant doesn't making the sample non representative.
Can someone explain what this sentence means?
And yet none of it has anything to do with any actual weakness in the carbon dating process, which means it's not really relevant at all.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
No, you don't have that option.
There is no evidence the sample is not representative of the cloth.
Those sources have been discussed repeatedly.
Ask H to explain it to you again, if need be.
True in this instance. Let's not get carried away.
It would be strange indeed if the Church couldn't handle a venerated relic becoming exposed as a fraud. They've only had a thousand years of practice. Give me a thousand years of practice and I'll break every Olympic record out there. Plus, there was the evidence that it wasn't from the 1st century, such as a bishop claiming that it was a forgery back in the Middle Ages (discussed several times up-thread).
Quite right, Dinwar.
In fact, the Vatican's unwillingness to shut down the various devotional groups dedicated to the TS and its study leads me to the conclusion that all along, what IS authentic about the TS is its undoubted powers as a money spinner.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,302
No, and with as much respect as you deserve, it's a tedious, dishonest and pathetic attempt to distract.
What, exactly, do you think still remains to be debated? You have produced nothing which casts doubt on the 14th century date, so that rules out the piece of cloth being the burial shroud of Jesus. There isn't anywhere to get to, we've already arrived.
Only half right.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,238
This is especially important and relevant given that in th eighties AMS was a new technique, compared to counter based dating, and had given a highly inaccurate date in one comparison test in 1985 because of pre-treatment problems.
No. Yet another pathetic attempt by you to control the debate.
Irrelevant, repetitive nonsense. You tried pushing this crap because you couldn't address the radiocarbon dating and still can't.
Again rubbish. The shroud has, despite your beliefs, been reproduced using medieval techniques. Further you have completely failed to support you assertion that medieval artists couldn't have created it with actual evidence.
You failed to support your claims with evidence and so they were rejected.
Another unsupported assertion.
Rubbish. The selected area was exhaustively examined, before, during and after the sampling. There was/is no magic patch.
Lots more unsupported claims that you unquestioningly parrot.
Pathetic. This attempt to somehow equate evidence and expert opinion with some random claims further demonstrated your dishonesty.This has been covered previously.
I'm sorry Google Translate doesn't yet support religious Gibberish.
Belz...
Fiend God
Which is hilarious, since most of your posts contain several bullet points that are all over the place without actually getting anywhere.
You want to zoom in ? OK. Please provide evidence that the C14 results are incorrect. And if you can't, admit that it's a medieval fake.
I think Jabba chapter 7538 verse 15 :
So, in summary:
IF carbon dating lab scientists and church scientists agreed on sample location and number
AND IF other scientists (who they?) disagreed on sample location and number
THEN Jabba agrees with Hugh about ???
ELSE Jabba disagrees with Hugh about ???
Perhaps Jabba could clarify whether that was his intended meaning.
means that as long as Jabba can be assured that the scientists representing the carbon dating labs and those representing the church all agreed on the number of samples and the location, but any other scientists there (representing what I'm not quite sure) disagreed, then Jabba is happy to agree with Hugh, though I am not sure what he is agreeing with Hugh about. I'd like to think he agrees with Hugh that the TS is a 14th century artefact, but that seems such a rapid about-face from the rest of Jabba's post that it seems to me unlikely.
So, in summary:
IF carbon dating lab scientists and church scientists agreed on sample location and number
AND IF other scientists (who they?) disagreed on sample location and number
THEN Jabba agrees with Hugh about ???
ELSE Jabba disagrees with Hugh about ???
Perhaps Jabba could clarify whether that was his intended meaning.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You forgot to close your IF statement.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Ahh, I think you're right, Agatha, thanks!
It was the unmentioned (unmentionable) scientists in the third undefined set that were confusing me.
It was the unmentioned (unmentionable) scientists in the third undefined set that were confusing me.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,820
This is the part I am asking you to explain, though. HOW does all what you said above result in a more recent date of the shroud?
You have asserted that the measured samples are not representative of the rest of the shroud. How do supposed "weaknesses...in the 10 years of the carbon dating process" make the sample non-representative of the shroud?
It's not enough just to claim that there was something amiss about the process, you actually have to explain how that leads to an incorrect date. For example, if you want to invoke an invisible patch, you have to explain how the sampling process that was used was more likely to result in choosing an invisible patch. If you can't, then why does it matter how it was chosen?
It's Jabba's logic, not mine
I think an END IF will only confuse him further, unless he's a FORTRAN whizz. 
Perhaps when (if) Jabba clarifies his intended meaning, we can see if more expressions are necessary before closing the statement.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba has been posting in this thread for over a year, prevaricating all the way. And he talks about respect?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
It's Jabba's logic, not mine
Perhaps when (if) Jabba clarifies his intended meaning, we can see if more expressions are necessary before closing the statement.
An endless recursive loop is very much representative of Jabbas' participation in this thread.
He's hung up in a do loop.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,293
It seems more of a will do loop.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
Could it be that Jabba inadvertently left out the bolded word? The sentence then seems to make sense. Sense in that the sentence can be followed with respect to what he said previously, not sense in any logical meaning.
- Status