ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 5th July 2012, 06:16 AM   #2121
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,855
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Before I get started -- somewhere above I had said that my "offer" still stands. Obviously, that's the wrong word. It should have been request," or even "plea." I think that you can solve the basic problem that this thread has.
I think that only you can solve the basic problem that this thread has, Jabba.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 06:49 AM   #2122
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,635
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
16.2 has been dealt with. It's been pointed out that alterations to sampling protocols aren't uncommon in science, despite what you want to think. Further, the alterations are incredibly superficial--the number of samples was reduced. NO ONE who's looked at the data objectively has complained about the alterations in the protocols.
The only actual changes to the initially agreed protocol for the sampling were:
  • the presence of laboratory observers at the sampling of the shroud for analysis
  • the removal of a larger than originally planned section of cloth, half of which was retained for additional analysis if needed
  • the not quite simultaneous analyses of the samples by the laboratories
  • the provision of three, rather than two, control sample of known age and origin to each lab
None of these in any way invalidate, or even cast any doubt, on the radiocarbon dating, except in the mind of desperate shroudies.

In summary:
catsmate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 06:52 AM   #2123
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Effective Debate

<some snippage>


Appears to be completely beyond you.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 06:59 AM   #2124
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating

Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
...Do you have some thoughts as to where one might obtain the materials for an invisible patch that so closely matches the surrounding cloth that it completely fooled experts that selected the patch area in 1988 and it again completely fooled the experts in 2002 when the shroud when the last shroud restoration effort was undertaken? My guess here, is that you intend to rely on the work of Rogers who claimed to have detected differences in the patch material and the rest of the shroud...
Dave,
- There are various papers that talk about, or around, that issue -- and when I get to the digging, I'll see what I can regain or find in them, but as implied previously, I don't think that they have a whole lot to offer...
- Here, I'm running into the need, or the urge, to rush -- which does cause problems -- but, I'm hoping to "touch on" answers to your different questions, before returning to the time-consuming digging and elaboration.
--- Jabba
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 07:04 AM   #2125
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,815
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- There are various papers that talk about, or around, that issue -- and when I get to the digging, I'll see what I can regain or find in them, but as implied previously, I don't think that they have a whole lot to offer...
- Here, I'm running into the need, or the urge, to rush -- which does cause problems -- but, I'm hoping to "touch on" answers to your different questions, before returning to the time-consuming digging and elaboration.
--- Jabba
That's one thing I love about this thread. You're convinced that your beliefs are correct, but you have no idea what your actual beliefs are.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 07:10 AM   #2126
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,635
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sorry about that, Dave -- but, the offer still stands.
- Obviously, everyone would still ask or say whatever they wish -- you'd just choose the q/c for me to answer next.
- When I choose, not only does everyone fuss at me for my answer, they fuss at me for what I don't answer. With you deciding what I should answer next, they'd have to fuss at you for that second complaint. That would be a big help.
- And, I would begin piling up answers to your approval...
--- Jabba
Here's my question to you; when are you going to stop lying, evading. re-posting debunked pseudoscience and actually present some evidence for your claims?
catsmate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 07:16 AM   #2127
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Here's my question to you; when are you going to stop lying, evading. re-posting debunked pseudoscience and actually present some evidence for your claims?
He can't do that because the evidence does not exist.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 07:17 AM   #2128
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

<snip>


Missed this, did you?

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here. NO other argument matters--if you can't produce that, you don't know enough about C14 dating to evaluate it. If there's not that amount of contamination the shroud's a fake, period. Provide that number, or there's nothing else to discuss.


Get with the programme, Jabba.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 07:24 AM   #2129
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
The only actual changes to the initially agreed protocol for the sampling were:
  • the presence of laboratory observers at the sampling of the shroud for analysis
  • the removal of a larger than originally planned section of cloth, half of which was retained for additional analysis if needed
  • the not quite simultaneous analyses of the samples by the laboratories
  • the provision of three, rather than two, control sample of known age and origin to each lab
None of these in any way invalidate, or even cast any doubt, on the radiocarbon dating, except in the mind of desperate shroudies.

In summary:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...e8b99a1548.png
I thought there was something about reducing the number of labs getting samples as well. Not that it makes the C14 dating any less reliable--sending it to ONE lab would be sufficient, particularly given the number of control samples being sent with the actual sample--I just want to make sure I'm remembering correctly.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 07:41 AM   #2130
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,834
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Before I get started --
<snippage>
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Here, I'm running into the need, or the urge, to rush -- which does cause problems -- but, I'm hoping to "touch on" answers to your different questions,
<more snippage>
This after 54 pages and 2130 posts.

I dread to think what this mess of a thread would look like if you were taking your time.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 08:04 AM   #2131
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sorry about that, Dave -- but, the offer still stands.
- Obviously, everyone would still ask or say whatever they wish -- you'd just choose the q/c for me to answer next.
- ....
--- Jabba
I just can't help hearing this in the back of my mind:

Quote:
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave Bowman: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 08:15 AM   #2132
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
I just can't help hearing this in the back of my mind:

[url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706937/"]


Me too, but I was too lazy to quote it properly so I went the Cheech & Chong, "Dave's not here" route.

__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 08:21 AM   #2133
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230


The bottom line struck me as sooo appropriate:
Quote:
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.


I didn't have the heart to quote the rest of the dialog, which is also apt.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 08:34 AM   #2134
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
I didn't have the heart to quote the rest of the dialog, which is also apt.


Some of it is chillingly appropriate.
"Look Dave I can't put my finger on it but I sense something strange about him."

Eerie.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 08:35 AM   #2135
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating

Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Have you taken any time to read through the responses to Rogers work and the criticism of Rogers work even by pro-authenticity advocates. Here's one long critique of Roger's work:

http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shrou...a-response.htm

From the above article:
Rather than attempt a broad outline of what you intend to prove again, I think you might focus on a specific point that you wish to make. In this case, a specific statement by you of what you believe to be a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud would be relevant I think.
Dave,

- Sounds like a good idea, and unless you wish me to dig and elaborate on one or more of your previous questions first, I'll now try to dig and elaborate on this one instead. It might take awhile.

- My general response to the above article is that both sides of this world-wide debate are biased -- it isn't just us believers -- and Dr. Schafersman tips off his own bias with many of the words he uses. And, what he calls "pseudo-science" is invoked by both sides.
- In his article, Dr. S makes a multitude of claims. If you wish, I can address them one at a time -- but that will greatly postpone my other digging and elaborating...
- Hopefully, your fellows will begin to appreciate the enormity of trying to answer all their raised questions... (Yeah, right...)

- And note that I have tried to answer some of their oft repeated questions. I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084). But some of your fellows either don't notice my answers, or just ignore them -- whereas, others of your fellows just sweep my answers off the table and under the rug in one fell swoop -- without any specific explanations.
- Others DO provide specific questions or explanations here and there -- and then, I have to decide who and what to try to fit in.

- And now, unless you point me elsewhere -- on to my attempt at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".


--- Jabba
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 08:54 AM   #2136
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
This might help:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinwar
Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here...
Quote:
Zitat von Dinwar Beitrag anzeigen
Entweder buchen Sie den Betrag der Verunreinigung notwendig sind, um ein Tuch zu lesen 1. Jahrhundert als gedacht, es ist aus dem 14. Jahrhundert, oder wir hier tun ...
Quote:
Αρχικό μήνυμα από Dinwar Εμφάνιση
Είτε μετά το ποσό της μόλυνσης χρειάζεται να κάνει μια πρώτη πανί αιώνα ως πίστευα ότι είναι από τον 14ο αιώνα, ή να τελειώσει εδώ ...
Quote:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Dinwar
تستطيع إما من كمية التلوث اللازمة لجعل قطعة قماش القرن 1 قراءة كما كان يعتقد انها من القرن 14، أو الانتهاء من ذلك نحن هنا ...
Quote:
Сообщение от Dinwar View
Либо разместить количества загрязнений необходимо, чтобы 1-го века ткань читается как думал, что это 14-го века, и мы сделали здесь ...
Quote:
โพสต์ Dinwar ดู
ทั้งโพสต์จำนวนเงินจากการปนเปื้อนที่จำเป็นในการทำให ้ผ้าศตวรรษที่ 1 อ่านว่าคิดว่ามันมาจากศตวรรษที่ 14 หรือที่เรากำลังทำที่นี่ ...
Quote:

פורסם במקור על ידי Dinwar
או לפרסם את כמות זיהום צריכה לעשות בד המאה ה -1 לקרוא חשבתי שזה מהמאה ה -14, או שנסיים כאן ...
Quote:
నిజానికి Dinwar అభిప్రాయాలను పోస్ట్ చేయబడింది #
గానీ అది 14 వ శతాబ్దం నుండి అనిపిస్తుంది ఆలోచన, లేదా మేము ఇక్కడ పూర్తి చేసిన ఒక 1 వ శతాబ్దం వస్త్రం చదవడానికి తయారు చేసేందుకు అవసరమైన కాలుష్యం మొత్తాన్ని పోస్ట్ ...
Quote:
我Dinwar!
要么张贴的污染量,需要做出一个1世纪的布看,以为是从14世纪,我们在这里做...
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 08:56 AM   #2137
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,815
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My general response to the above article is that both sides of this world-wide debate are biased -- it isn't just us believers -- and Dr. Schafersman tips off his own bias with many of the words he uses. And, what he calls "pseudo-science" is invoked by both sides.
The Vatican would be biased towards authenticity. What's their stance?

Quote:
- And note that I have tried to answer some of their oft repeated questions. I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084).
Yes, you say you've got credible evidence on a subject about which you know nothing. But what little you do know forces you to admit that, for there to be enough contamination for what you say to be true that 3/4ths of the weight of the sampled patch would have to be contaminant and only 1/4 could be the original cloth. And yet you believe that it's credible that not only is this the case, but that nobody has ever noticed that the Shroud is now composed of 3 times as much dirt as it is material.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 09:00 AM   #2138
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Sounds like a good idea, and unless you wish me to dig and elaborate on one or more of your previous questions first

<snip>


What a good idea.


Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here. NO other argument matters--if you can't produce that, you don't know enough about C14 dating to evaluate it. If there's not that amount of contamination the shroud's a fake, period. Provide that number, or there's nothing else to discuss.


Go!
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 09:05 AM   #2139
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
This might help:


__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 09:18 AM   #2140
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Sounds like a good idea, and unless you wish me to dig and elaborate on one or more of your previous questions first, I'll now try to dig and elaborate on this one instead. It might take awhile.

- My general response to the above article is that both sides of this world-wide debate are biased -- it isn't just us believers -- and Dr. Schafersman tips off his own bias with many of the words he uses. And, what he calls "pseudo-science" is invoked by both sides.
- In his article, Dr. S makes a multitude of claims. If you wish, I can address them one at a time -- but that will greatly postpone my other digging and elaborating...
- Hopefully, your fellows will begin to appreciate the enormity of trying to answer all their raised questions... (Yeah, right...)

- And note that I have tried to answer some of their oft repeated questions. I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084). But some of your fellows either don't notice my answers, or just ignore them -- whereas, others of your fellows just sweep my answers off the table and under the rug in one fell swoop -- without any specific explanations.
- Others DO provide specific questions or explanations here and there -- and then, I have to decide who and what to try to fit in.

- And now, unless you point me elsewhere -- on to my attempt at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".


--- Jabba
In context:

In past years, Rogers has published many pro-authenticity papers in various pro-authenticity and pseudoscientific journals, symposia, and websites devoted to the Shroud of Turin, and the public press justifiably took no notice, since private publishing outlets for UFOs, astrology, creationism, and other pseudoscientific topics are numerous (and fill supermarket newsstands and pseudoscience conference book tables)
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 09:36 AM   #2141
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,834
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
I just can't help hearing this in the back of my mind:

[url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706937/"]
Brilliant.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 09:41 AM   #2142
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,834
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Sounds like a good idea, and unless you wish me to dig and elaborate on one or more of your previous questions first, I'll now try to dig and elaborate on this one instead. It might take awhile.

- My general response to the above article is that both sides of this world-wide debate are biased -- it isn't just us believers -- and Dr. Schafersman tips off his own bias with many of the words he uses. And, what he calls "pseudo-science" is invoked by both sides.
- In his article, Dr. S makes a multitude of claims. If you wish, I can address them one at a time -- but that will greatly postpone my other digging and elaborating...
- Hopefully, your fellows will begin to appreciate the enormity of trying to answer all their raised questions... (Yeah, right...)

- And note that I have tried to answer some of their oft repeated questions. I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084). But some of your fellows either don't notice my answers, or just ignore them -- whereas, others of your fellows just sweep my answers off the table and under the rug in one fell swoop -- without any specific explanations.
- Others DO provide specific questions or explanations here and there -- and then, I have to decide who and what to try to fit in.

- And now, unless you point me elsewhere -- on to my attempt at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".


--- Jabba
Do you think davefoc knows yet that he has been adopted as Jabbas mascot?

This thread needs to be moved to humor.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 10:00 AM   #2143
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
This thread needs to be moved to humor.


How about a bit of creative merging into a mega-thread called "The incredible odds of the the New Testament writers telling the truth about the blood on the shroud"?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 10:33 AM   #2144
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,801
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Sounds like a good idea, and unless you wish me to dig and elaborate on one or more of your previous questions first, I'll now try to dig and elaborate on this one instead. It might take awhile.

- My general response to the above article is that both sides of this world-wide debate are biased -- it isn't just us believers -- and Dr. Schafersman tips off his own bias with many of the words he uses. And, what he calls "pseudo-science" is invoked by both sides.
- In his article, Dr. S makes a multitude of claims. If you wish, I can address them one at a time -- but that will greatly postpone my other digging and elaborating...
- Hopefully, your fellows will begin to appreciate the enormity of trying to answer all their raised questions... (Yeah, right...)

- And note that I have tried to answer some of their oft repeated questions. I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084). But some of your fellows either don't notice my answers, or just ignore them -- whereas, others of your fellows just sweep my answers off the table and under the rug in one fell swoop -- without any specific explanations.
- Others DO provide specific questions or explanations here and there -- and then, I have to decide who and what to try to fit in.

- And now, unless you point me elsewhere -- on to my attempt at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".


--- Jabba

The above is all 100% totally irrelevant nonsense which you have posted at least 20 times before.

There is only one issue here, and it’s this - You have been asked at least 50 times for any scientifically valid independent papers criticising the C14, and it’s crystal clear that you definitely do not have any.

In the above you are yet again, for what must be the 30th time, trying to rewind the arguments to go back & repeat all the totally discredited things you claimed 40 pages back.

If you don't have any real scientific papers which claim the C14 was wrong, then that's the end of the scientific line of argument. And you very clearly do not have such genuine papers.

That was your only task in this thread - to produce even one genuine independent science paper that claims the C14 is wrong. You have absolutely no answer to that at all ... you do not have even one genuine paper.

Either produce a real independent paper, or else admit once and for all that you have no such paper criticising the C14.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 11:07 AM   #2145
Gao
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And, keep in mind that I believe that there are very significant pieces of scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is much older than the 14th century -- and consequently, there just about "has to be" some sort of error in the dating...
I've asked you for this before, and all you showed me was one painting where you declared the top of a sarcophagus to be a shroud, and a vague mention of another supposed relic. Evidence for this would have to be incredibly strong to bring doubt onto the carbon dating results, but from what I can tell, there's litarally nothing to indicate that this cloth was around before 13th century let alone the first.
Gao is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 11:16 AM   #2146
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,834
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
How about a bit of creative merging into a mega-thread called "The incredible odds of the the New Testament writers telling the truth about the blood on the shroud"?
Aha, I like it. But the title did make my eyes water. Is that a miracle?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 11:18 AM   #2147
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,427
Hello Jabba et al.

I am a little rushed for time this morning. I would like to spend a bit more time reviewing what has been said before posting but I don't have time right now.

First a general comment:
I can relate a bit to where you are coming from Jabba. At first glance there appears to be a balance of reasonable experts on both sides of this issue. Given that, you have, reasonably enough, tried to determine which set of experts to trust and your choice, reasonably enough, has been influenced by what you believe outside the area of C14 testing on the shroud. I think this process isn't a lot different even for the skeptics, except, I think, most (probably all) of us believe that even without the C14 testing it is wildly unlikely that this is the burial shroud of Jesus.

I would note a few things about the situation with regard to shroud experts that applies to this kind of thing in general. There is a market for shroud authenticity advocates. A lot of people want to believe the shroud is authentic and they will buy books and read articles by people that support their confirmation biases. They will even spend money to go to conventions to hear these people. When there is a market for something people will produce it, so that the existence of shroud authenticity proponents would be expected regardless of the quality of evidence that supports the authenticity of the shroud. Unfortunately this means the existence of authenticity proponents, even a lot of them, provides almost no probative evidence about the authenticity of the shroud. This means that a personal search for truth on this issue requires an examination of the credibility of people that write about the shroud to sort through the issue of whether what is going on with regard to shroud authenticity advocacy is serious science or just routine blather that accompanies all these kind of things.

I think the pro-authenticity arguments easily fall into the routine blather range for something like this, but I am also in the camp that believes it is indistinguishably different from impossible that the shroud is authentic. However, even if I believed in the authenticity of the shroud the C14 evidence would be daunting evidence that I was wrong. That there are arguments against the reliability of the C14 tests is to be fully expected. Many people have staked a great deal of effort doing questionable science to promote the authenticity of the shroud. It is fully expected that they would not accept even daunting evidence that conflicts with deeply held beliefs and that they would promote the reliability of even very dodgy arguments to sustain their personal beliefs and in some cases to sustain the economic benefit they gain from advocacy for shroud authenticity.

Right now, the specific issue that I proposed for you to address was whether the shroud underwent an invisible repair in the area where the C14 samples were taken.

I will repeat my question to you here: What method do you believe could have been used to make such a repair?

Here is some information about what experts that have examined the shroud on this subject have to say:

From "An Evidentiary Analysis of the Proofs Claimed by Ray Rogers" by Mark Antonacci
Quote:
Mechtild Flury-Lemberg, one of the world’s leading textile experts on ancient textiles and the Shroud of Turin, and who specifically led the examination and restoration of the Shroud in 2002, are particularly illuminating on these questions. Following the Shroud’s lengthy examination and restoration she stated:

Quote:
I would like to add here a note on the hypothetical “reweaving done in the 16th century.” There is no doubt that the Shroud does not contain any reweaving. The fabric is scattered with irregularities which are the result of faults made during the weaving process, and which could be mistaken for reweaving. But they are normal for fabrics of the early periods. Such irregularities are actually proof that a fabric has been woven on a hand-loom which points to an early date of origin of the fabric….Reweaving in the literal sense does not exist. Once the piece of fabric is taken off the loom the weaving process is finished. Afterwards one can only alter a fabric by using needle and thread. An example would be a hole which has been mended by imitating its weave structure. This process will always be recognizable as mending and in any case visible on the reverse of the fabric.
*
From http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index3.html (page 3)
Quote:
Researchers and thousands of people who follow shroud research
were dismayed when, within days of Rogers’ paper, Turin’s
Monsignor Giuseppe Ghiberti told an Italian newspaper,
Quote:
“I am astonished that an expert like Rogers could fall into so many inaccuracies in his article. I can only hope, indeed, also think that the C14 dating is rectifiable (the method, in fact, has its own uncertainties), but not on the basis of the 'darn' theory.”
*M. Flury-Lemberg, Sindone 2002 (Torino: Editrice ODPF, 2003), p. 60. English translation: Rosamund Bandi and Susie Clavarino Phillips.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 11:35 AM   #2148
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by davefoc
However, even if I believed in the authenticity of the shroud the C14 evidence would be daunting evidence that I was wrong
There's a habit that distinguishes scientists from advocates: A scientist will usually, and always if asked for it, state the nature of the evidence required to prove their hypothesis wrong. For example, when Alvarez et al. proposed a bolide impact as the event ending the Mesozoic Era they acknowledged that a gradual extinction, starting well before the impact event itself, would be sufficient proof that the impact wasn't the cause of the extinction. Scientists such as Peter Ward went out and tried to find evidence of gradual and catastrphic extinctions. Similarly, physicists in general admit that if certain subatomic particles aren't found it will mean that our current understanding of physics requires re-evaluation. That's why the evidence for the Higgs bosson is so important--it's a disproof of a counter-argument against the modern understanding of physics, and one of the biggest we have right now.

C14 dating is subject to numerous issues. I've worked with C14 dating that was contaminated with "dead" carbon (carbon where all the C14 has been removed), and it makes dating a nightmare. There's also issues with things like calibration curves, and solar cycles, and closing temperatures. So I'm not going to say, and I don't believe I HAVE said, that the C14 dating is entirely conclusive and cannot be questioned. However, C14 dating does work, and works for innumerable artifacts. No one questions C14 dating of the charcoal remains of an ancient camp fire (I've collected samples for such analysis). No one questions C14 dating of bone, horn, or wooden handles on weapons. No one questions C14 dating of teeth and bone (they raise unholy hell when you propose doing it, but if you get the chance and follow established protocols no one will dismiss your results merely because C14 dating is somewhat difficult to interpret). These issues are ONLY raised with the shroud. I can't even say that the data is expected to be extraordinarily high-quality--in truth, the doubts about C14 dating raised by pro-1st century advocates indicate that NO quality of data would be acceptable!

All of that said, the entire C14 argument boils down to one single number: the amount of contamination necessary to make a 1st century cloth read as though it was from the 14th century. If someone is claiming that the C14 dating is wrong, that number is what they are, by the nature of the system and the nature of their arguments, looking for. Thus far, no one on the pro-1st century side has even provided that number, let alone shown that that degree of contamination is feasible.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 01:04 PM   #2149
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,815
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I am a little rushed for time this morning. I would like to spend a bit more time reviewing what has been said before posting but I don't have time right now.
Why don't you take a leaf out of Jabba's book? Spend time reviewing what has been said and then post that you don't have time to post anything else.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 02:35 PM   #2150
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,853
Jabba, please allow me to run with your courtroom analogy a little bit.

This is like a murder trial. There's a guy (we'll call him Tony Soprano, or TS for short) on trial for shooting someone. There's no witness to place him at the scene, but forensic testing of the bullet that caused death shows that it was fired from a gun owned by Tony. This gun was subsequently found in Tony's locked car which only he has the keys to, with a bullet missing from the magazine and only Tony's fingerprints on the gun. When tested Tony was found to have gunshot residue on his hands and arm and blood spatter from the victim on his shoes and trousers. There's also several shoe prints at the murder scene that match Tony's expensive and virtually unique shoes that he always wears, tyre prints from his car at the scene and no fingerprints, hairs or fibres that don't come from Tony or his clothes in the car.

However, a good friend of Tony's says that he thought he might possibly have seen Tony at the time of the shooting in a bar 5 miles away, and the defence attorney has pointed out that the real killer could possibly have worn gloves and that the blood spatter might possibly be from someone else, or maybe was transplanted by the real killer. He also argues that since Tony owned the gun it's hardly surprising that he has gunshot residue, he is after all legally allowed to fire his own gun, and who knows whether or not the real killer might have stolen Tony's car keys, taken the gun and Tony's shoes, killed the victim, planted Tony's shoe prints, returned the gun, planted the blood spatter on Tony, reloaded the gun, somehow got Tony to fire a bullet from it, placed it back in the car and returned Tony's car keys, all without Tony knowing about it.

The defence attorney has also found a guy who has no expertise in forensics, but thinks that despite what all the forensic scientists say, blood matching isn't as accurate as most people think, that gunshot residue can come from other sources, and the shoe prints could come from any old pair of loafers. Not a single expert witness has taken the stand for the defence, and when the defence cross-examined the expert witnesses they were all adamant that only Tony could have murdered the victim, no other explanation fits the data, to which the defence attorney suggests that maybe one or more of them was in on it.

You're on the jury. Would you convict Tony? Do you think that the defence attorney has raised a reasonable doubt?


And that's where you are.

The C14 result, combined with the fact that the image on the shroud isn't in natural proportions and matches almost exactly the artistic style of the C14 date and the weave is of a type that wasn't known in the 1st century but was in the 14th, is the blood spatter, shoe prints and gunshot residue. It's hard forensic evidence. The expert witnesses all agree that the C14 date is correct. On the other side you have some non-expert witnesses suggesting that maybe the C14 date is wrong, because maybe the shroud was contaminated, or maybe the test section wasn't representative of the whole cloth. Some others suggest that the odd proportions of the body were caused by the magical way that the image was imprinted on the shroud, and yet others suggesting that the scientists who did the C14 testing are lying. They have no science just insinuations that the real science might possibly be flawed, although they can't properly explain how.

All the experts agree that all of the evidence gives a clear and definitive date for the age of the shroud that places its production in the 13th to 14th century.

If this were a courtroom then you're not arguing a case, because the jury have already retired, several years ago in fact, and you're now just engaged in fruitlessly searching for an attorney to lodge an appeal. Fruitless, because no attorney will take the case for the simple reason that they know the appeal would be dismissed out of hand.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 09:59 PM   #2151
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,675
I believe that the Shroud is, in fact, the sleeping bag of Attila the Hun. I have many reasons to believe this, including having seen a movie in which John Wayne played Attila, and having read pro-Attila websites (one of which I manage myself), and my own personal feeling that it would be supercool if it were true. The 14C dating is off a bit, but less so than if the Shroud was the burial cloth for Christ.

I first intend to create a complex outline of the arguments I intend to make, and then present them slowly over the next months, repeating debunked arguments as necessary. How many pages can I go before we roll over into a part 2 thread?

Last edited by Giordano; 5th July 2012 at 10:14 PM. Reason: for clarity
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2012, 10:12 PM   #2152
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,993
Genius, Sir. I'll nominate as soon as I can get to the internet
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2012, 12:00 AM   #2153
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
^
Seconded.


Gosh.
Lots of thoughtful posts on the subject of the TS have been posted up.
Still, I'll admit to being a bit disappointed Jabba's friends don't post here. Perhaps my request for a pro-Shroud forum link has been buried in the thread, but I'd be interested in seeing how the authenticity advocates argue on their own turf.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- When I choose, not only does everyone fuss at me for my answer, they fuss at me for what I don't answer. ...
Well, Jabba, the reason for that is very simple and I'll tell you how to find it.
Look for the common denominators in the answers to your posts.

You'll see there's basically one subject most people who post here consider worth discussing on the subject of TS.
Yes, it's the C14 dating.

You're being asked, unanimously (correct me if I'm wrong) to show WHY that scientific evidence is controversial.
And to show it via science, not via allusions to a conspiracy.



Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
... As far as I can tell, "invisible" in the sense you mean doesn't seem possible. Though researchers are still arguing the case, and I'll need to go back and dig up their current arguments. ...
Researchers? Name them, please.

Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
The only actual changes to the initially agreed protocol for the sampling were:
  • the presence of laboratory observers at the sampling of the shroud for analysis
  • the removal of a larger than originally planned section of cloth, half of which was retained for additional analysis if needed
  • the not quite simultaneous analyses of the samples by the laboratories
  • the provision of three, rather than two, control sample of known age and origin to each lab
None of these in any way invalidate, or even cast any doubt, on the radiocarbon dating, except in the mind of desperate shroudies.

In summary:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...e8b99a1548.png
I'm bumping this to show where things stand with the C14 dating of the TS.



Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I thought there was something about reducing the number of labs getting samples as well. Not that it makes the C14 dating any less reliable--sending it to ONE lab would be sufficient, particularly given the number of control samples being sent with the actual sample--I just want to make sure I'm remembering correctly.
From 7 to 3. Since the Vatican was footing the bill, they called the shots on that. I doubt the Holy See thought that a movement to discredit the scientific results would be spawned by this decision.

Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
I just can't help hearing this in the back of my mind:

[url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706937/"]
Just as I read all yreeG's posts in Dr. Sheldon Cooper's voice, now all Jabba's have, thanks to you, found their own identity.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,... I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084). But some of your fellows either don't notice my answers, or just ignore them -- whereas, others of your fellows just sweep my answers off the table and under the rug in one fell swoop -- without any specific explanations. ...
I've referred you again and again to your own earlier threads at the atheist forum where your ideas were debunked.
Do you really not see where your answers have been repeatedly countered?
Is there really one which has not been countered?
If so, could you link to it, please?


Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...for there to be enough contamination for what you say to be true that 3/4ths of the weight of the sampled patch would have to be contaminant and only 1/4 could be the original cloth. And yet you believe that it's credible that not only is this the case, but that nobody has ever noticed that the Shroud is now composed of 3 times as much dirt as it is material.
Does this post help you understand why the contamination 'objection' is so absurd, Jabba?



Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...All of that said, the entire C14 argument boils down to one single number: the amount of contamination necessary to make a 1st century cloth read as though it was from the 14th century. If someone is claiming that the C14 dating is wrong, that number is what they are, by the nature of the system and the nature of their arguments, looking for. Thus far, no one on the pro-1st century side has even provided that number, let alone shown that that degree of contamination is feasible.
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
...If this were a courtroom then you're not arguing a case, because the jury have already retired, several years ago in fact, and you're now just engaged in fruitlessly searching for an attorney to lodge an appeal. Fruitless, because no attorney will take the case for the simple reason that they know the appeal would be dismissed out of hand.
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2012, 01:07 AM   #2154
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,801
The reason why the C14 is the end point of this discussion, and the end point for Jabba, is because -

- if the C14 is right, then all other arguments about authenticity are ruled out completely.

- if the shroud dates from c.1260 - 1390AD, then arguments about blood, or the weave pattern, or whether anyone has recreated the image etc., are all dead in the water.

So the only real question here is - Is the C14 right?

And the answer to that is - the C14 tests were specifically “scientific”, and the only valid way to refute published scientific results is for someone to publish equally valid scientific results showing the C14 to be wrong.

But so far, despite what Jabba keeps claiming, the true fact is that in 25 years since the C14 tests were made, not one genuine independent scientist has ever published a single word claiming any doubt about the C14 results.

On that basis the C14 stands entirely unchallenged (challenges which amount only to religious faith, don’t count).

Exactly the same applies to claims of a patch or invisible repair. That claim is also 100% worthless unless someone can produce a genuine independent science paper showing that the C14 sample area was actually a 13th-14th century patch. But in the absence of any such paper, the patch/repair claim is again nothing more than the same religious faith claim all over again.

That was really the point of ever doing the C14 in the first place, ie to put an end to speculative claims and counter-claims about authenticity of the shroud.

Has the C14 put an end to the debate? Well actually, despite all the continuing religious protests, yes it has. It’s put an end to it because there is no valid argument left in favour of authenticity unless and until someone produces genuine scientific publications showing the C14 was wrong … and so far, in 25 years, nobody has been able to produce even one such objecting paper. Not even one.

That’s why the buck stops with the C14. And it’s been stopped there since 1988.


Edit just to add -

That doesn’t mean you can’t have all sorts of interesting discussions about the shroud. But it does mean you can’t have a valid discussion if that discussion attempts to proceed on the basis of claiming or implying that that the likely date of the shroud is anything other than 13th-14th century.

And unfortunately that is what Jabba and his fellow shroud believers want to do … they want to proceed only on the basis that we reject the C14, and on any honest basis that is just not possible.

Last edited by IanS; 6th July 2012 at 01:21 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2012, 07:27 AM   #2155
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,169
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
So the only real question here is - Is the C14 right?

And the answer to that is - the C14 tests were specifically “scientific”, and the only valid way to refute published scientific results is for someone to publish equally valid scientific results showing the C14 to be wrong.
I disagree. This is a discussion forum, and a great place to exchange ideas without having the formality of publication. So, unlike others, I don't insist that Jabba provide reliable published results that demonstrate the failure of the C14 dating.

Then again, what I DO expect Jabba or other supporter to do is actually come up with a possible mechanism that would explain why a shroud from year 0 or before is dating to 1300 CE. And I don't mean random speculation, I mean actual, plausible mechanisms. We have heard a couple but they haven't held up. The patch crap has been completely destroyed 14 times over from Sunday, and no one has been able to support the contamination explanation, as Jabba doesn't even know how much contamination would be needed to cause the problem, nor an explanation for why it is there. Another one that has been mentioned in this thread has something to do with CO contamination, but no one has actually explained HOW that occurs to a level to account for the difference in the dates. Presumably it has something to do with carbon exchange between atmospheric CO and the carbon in the shroud, but I really don't have a clue what that entails nor how it occurs. But hey, I'm willing to listen to the proposed mechanism if someone can come up with one.

However, a PLAUSIBLE explanation means more than just saying, "It could be X" where X is some random factor. You actually have to show that X is plausible. I know lots of possible reasons why a shroud from 0 could date to 1300 CE. However, there is no reason to think that any of them apply to the shroud. And no one has ever postulated one that has stood up to any scrutiny at all.

This is what I want. You don't need to supply peer-reviewed citations (actually, I think this is a disingenuous request, since we all know they don't exist), but for pete's sake, say SOMETHING that is in the realm of being a possible explanation for why the C14 measurements have come out wrong. I'm glad to hear it and discuss it here. However, it should be something that doesn't invoke magic, and should have evidence to think that it could have occurred, as opposed to the secret invisible patch that no one knows about or the pile of contamination that no one can see.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2012, 08:17 AM   #2156
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,801
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I disagree. This is a discussion forum, and a great place to exchange ideas without having the formality of publication. So, unlike others, I don't insist that Jabba provide reliable published results that demonstrate the failure of the C14 dating.

Then again, what I DO expect Jabba or other supporter to do is actually come up with a possible mechanism that would explain why a shroud from year 0 or before is dating to 1300 CE. And I don't mean random speculation, I mean actual, plausible mechanisms. We have heard a couple but they haven't held up. The patch crap has been completely destroyed 14 times over from Sunday, and no one has been able to support the contamination explanation, as Jabba doesn't even know how much contamination would be needed to cause the problem, nor an explanation for why it is there. Another one that has been mentioned in this thread has something to do with CO contamination, but no one has actually explained HOW that occurs to a level to account for the difference in the dates. Presumably it has something to do with carbon exchange between atmospheric CO and the carbon in the shroud, but I really don't have a clue what that entails nor how it occurs. But hey, I'm willing to listen to the proposed mechanism if someone can come up with one.

However, a PLAUSIBLE explanation means more than just saying, "It could be X" where X is some random factor. You actually have to show that X is plausible. I know lots of possible reasons why a shroud from 0 could date to 1300 CE. However, there is no reason to think that any of them apply to the shroud. And no one has ever postulated one that has stood up to any scrutiny at all.

This is what I want. You don't need to supply peer-reviewed citations (actually, I think this is a disingenuous request, since we all know they don't exist), but for pete's sake, say SOMETHING that is in the realm of being a possible explanation for why the C14 measurements have come out wrong. I'm glad to hear it and discuss it here. However, it should be something that doesn't invoke magic, and should have evidence to think that it could have occurred, as opposed to the secret invisible patch that no one knows about or the pile of contamination that no one can see.


You might not have needed peer reviewed papers before the C14 was published. But since that publication you definitely do need to present comparable genuine publications if you are ever going to seriously challenge the C14.

That’s the whole reason that real science research is published in that way.

If it is claimed that a patch renders the C14 dating wrong. Then that claim must be held to the same scientific standards as the C14 … it has to be published.

If you make claims like that, but can’t get any of them published as genuine scientifically valid results, then frankly the claims are worthless.

The reason Benford and Marino could not publish their claim of an invisible patch was not because they did not try to get it published. In fact they did submit it to Radiocarbon, but it was rejected. It was rejected because the claim was not valid science.

Shroud believers like Ray Rogers, Benford & Marino and many others, have been trying to submit papers to genuine scientific journals for decades, but they are always rejected. Because far from being scientifically valid, they are instead just rather obvious religious propaganda.

Once the C14 was done and gave dates of c.1260 -1390AD, that put all arguments about the shroud on a very different footing altogether. Once something like that is published, the only way to dispute it is with similarly valid genuine science … not with claims and counter claims on shroud websites.



Edit, just to address the following quote more directly -

Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I disagree. This is a discussion forum, and a great place to exchange ideas without having the formality of publication. So, unlike others, I don't insist that Jabba provide reliable published results that demonstrate the failure of the C14 dating.

.
As I said in the edit to my previous post - it does not mean you can’t discuss it. But it does mean that the discussion has to acknowledge the C14 dates as the most likely, because they remain scientifically unchallenged after 25 years. Otherwise, if you want to discuss it on the basis that the C14 is wrong, then the discussion is deliberately unscientific in an arena where an unchallenged scientific determination has already been properly made and stood the peer-reviewed test of time.

Last edited by IanS; 6th July 2012 at 08:35 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2012, 08:36 AM   #2157
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges upon one thing: the amount of contamination necessary to make a 1st century cloth yield a C14 date of the 14th century. If your next post isn't "The amount of contamination necessary is X, and here's how I calculated it" you will go on "Ignore".
Dinwar,
- Either I don't understand your request, or I complied (and further described my C-14 knowledge) in post #1931, and you just missed it.
- In that post, I say, - I understand that there would have to be a lot of “contamination” by new tissue in order to account for a misreading of 1300 years. Harry Gove says that the weight of whatever is being dated would have to be about 75% brand new, to 25% old, in order to account for those 13 centuries. Gove accepted that Garza-Valdes did find some previously undisclosed contamination that remained after cleaning, but that Garza’s contamination wouldn’t account for more than 1 century of misreading.
- I'm afraid that I didn't calculate the contamination required -- I was just going by Gove's claim.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 6th July 2012 at 08:39 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2012, 08:38 AM   #2158
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 43,047
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dinwar,
- Either I don't understand your request, or I complied (and further described my C-14 knowledge) in post #1931, and you just missed it.
- In that post, I say, - I understand that there would have to be a lot of “contamination” by new tissue in order to account for a misreading of 1300 years. Harry Gove says that the weight of whatever is being dated would have to be about 75% brand new, to 25% old, in order to account for those 13 centuries. Gove accepted that Garza-Valdes did find some previously undisclosed contamination that remained after cleaning, but that Garza’s contamination wouldn’t account for more than 1 century of misreading.
--- Jabba
So, you agree that the reading can't be wrong because of contamination?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2012, 08:44 AM   #2159
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon dating

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
So, you agree that the reading can't be wrong because of contamination?
Zoo,
- Almost.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2012, 08:52 AM   #2160
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating

Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Jabba, please allow me to run with your courtroom analogy a little bit... If this were a courtroom then you're not arguing a case, because the jury have already retired, several years ago in fact, and you're now just engaged in fruitlessly searching for an attorney to lodge an appeal. Fruitless, because no attorney will take the case for the simple reason that they know the appeal would be dismissed out of hand.
Wollery,
- Good analogy (what appears above that last comment). If I can find the time, I'll try to complete it (as I see it). Right now, I have my hands full.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.