|
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. |
31st October 2012, 05:44 AM | #3881 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
31st October 2012, 05:54 AM | #3882 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Shiny, O Pharaoh, cheers!
My own vote for most informative posts would probably go to Dinwar- there's nothing like chatty 'dirt people'. |
31st October 2012, 06:11 AM | #3883 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
31st October 2012, 06:22 AM | #3884 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
31st October 2012, 12:36 PM | #3885 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
|
3rd November 2012, 12:09 AM | #3886 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Thanks
I mentioned this thread in my blog (http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.c...rgio-del-frio/) in the item about silver as catalyst. Footnote 1. Sorry I didn’t quote the names of all those who have provided some insight. It will be next time.
|
3rd November 2012, 12:59 AM | #3887 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Great blog, Dave.
Well written and well illustrated. |
3rd November 2012, 10:01 PM | #3888 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
|
I think the main problem with carbon-dating the shroud is the that it and the entire subject have been contaminated with excessive amounts of ************.
As to all the claims that the shroud's carbon dating was done wrong. Had the exact same procedures been done - including the claimed flaws - and that Shroud ad been dated to the first century, does anyone honestly believe that those crying fowl now would have pointed up all the flaws, had the test gone their way? |
3rd November 2012, 10:16 PM | #3889 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,915
|
I don't think the science matters to those who believe. While they attack the science, it's from a sense of obligation to their pre-existing beliefs, not out of desire to find the truth, because sometimes the truth is that pre-existing beliefs are wrong. I think there would be people still claiming the shroud's authenticity even if it was found to be made of nylon and painted with cheap finger-paint acrylics.
|
__________________
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells |
|
3rd November 2012, 10:29 PM | #3890 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
No, I think it is pretty obvious that the C14-results-were-flawed theories are all the grasping at straws kind of thing that people who are deeply invested in shroud authenticity would be expected to created in the face of overwhelming evidence that the shroud doesn't date to the first century.
I think it is interesting to contemplate how the skeptics would have viewed the C14 results if they had pointed to the first century. Of course, a first century date for the shroud is still a long way from proving that the shroud was associated with the Jesus of the NT, that it was actually used as a shroud, that the image wasn't created by an artist, etc. And of course it would have no value as evidence of the supernatural at all. Still a C14 test result pointing to the first century would have been intriguing. I, for one, would have been highly skeptical of the C14 test results if that had been the case. The evidence that the shroud is not of first century origin even without the C14 results is very strong and my guess would have been that the C14 test results were corrupted by some kind of collusion if they had pointed to the first century. I also might have looked a bit more kindly on the various ad hoc style theories that purport to show that the C14 test results were in error if the C14 test results had been inconsistent with what I see as very strong evidence a 14th century origin for the shroud. |
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb |
|
3rd November 2012, 11:38 PM | #3891 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
I was hoping for an early date because then it would be possible to identify the Shroud with the Mandylion and other earlier artefacts, as Ian Wilson does (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa) and then you can dream up an exciting history for the object, full of ancient mysteries and Templar secrets, all of which is tremendous fun!
|
4th November 2012, 12:51 AM | #3892 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
Just as a point of interest or a matter of principle - I'd be a little concerned if I thought you were in the habit of applying the above sort of logic to problems in general ... ... you appear to be regarding science no more reliable than other more subjective methods, and even suspecting that independent groups of research scientists might "collude" to deliberately invent a completely dishonest result. But the very reason that science has become so important over the past few centuries, and particularly over the last century or so, is because it's results and its honesty/veracity are so vastly more accurate and reliable than non-scientific methods. The only reason I'm drawing attention to that is because it's a very common position adopted by committed theists who almost always try to present science and scientific discoveries as little more than a matter of opinion which they are at liberty to treat as no more valid than their own opinions derived from religious faith. |
4th November 2012, 02:21 AM | #3893 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
^
That. Of course not. Just as they didn't in this particular instance: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120615.html Even though the lab used for this dating was one of the three used to date the TS. I've never understood how anyone could doubt the evidence of three independent labs especially with the bill being footed by the Vatican. Not to pry, but just how many times have you watched Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade this weekend? |
4th November 2012, 01:22 PM | #3894 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
The reason I mentioned it was because on one level it does seem to be hypocritical on my part.
I don't quite see it that way though. I would see the situation as one where there were two groups of facts each of which seemed to provide strong evidence for mutually exclusive possibilities. I believe I would have been very open to the possibility that there was something wrong with the evidence for either possibility. To some degree, this goes to the minor disagreement I've had with the folks in this thread that see the C14 results as so reliable that it constitutes categorical proof of the medieval origin of the shroud. I think the evidence of a medieval origin of the shroud is categorical, and the C14 results are an important aspect of my view about that, but the C14 results by themselves would be insufficient for me to see the evidence as categorical. There are at least three reasons why the C14 results could be wrong: 1. Collusion 2. Unknown problem with C14 dating accuracy 3. Errors during C14 testing If the C14 test results had pointed to a first century date I would have seen the possibility of collusion as significant. People go to huge lengths to fake religious objects and the tourism value, alone, for the Turin with a shroud dated to the first century would have been enough to make me suspicious. In the current situation where the C14 test results point to a medieval date I am a lot less suspicious of the possibility of collusion because the incentives for collusion seem to be mostly at odds with the results. Although, an unknown problem with C14 dating seems unlikely, there have been various problems discovered over the years with C14 testing and the possibility that there is another unknown one is not zero. |
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb |
|
4th November 2012, 02:02 PM | #3895 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
The possibility of gravity stopping working tomorrow is also not zero. Science simply doesn't deal in things having zero possibility.
That doesn't make disputing the C14 dating reasonable. It's a reliable test. If evidence were to come out at some future date that there's reason to doubt these results because of some hitherto unknown problem with C14 dating techniques, then the results should be re-assessed. Until such a time, though, there is no reason not to accept them as true. |
4th November 2012, 02:59 PM | #3896 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
I essentially agree with this, but suppose that the C14 tests provided a result which was inconsistent with other very strong evidence. Certainly it would be reasonable to think about very unlikely possibilities to explain the discrepancy.
For me the issue is moot with respect to the shroud. The available reliable evidence is completely consistent with a medieval date and a medieval date was indicated by the C14 test results. No problem. My guess is though, that periodically a C14 test has indicated a result completely inconsistent with the other evidence and a review of the evidence has found that the inconsistency was traced to a problem with the C14 testing, perhaps in the collecting of the samples, in the cleaning of the samples or in the execution of the tests. Even systematic C14 test errors might be possible such as the now well known discrepancy caused by fluctuating levels of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, and other now known problems such as the dating of marine samples or snails. ETA: I particularly agreed with this. My claim that the possibility of something was non-zero was obvious and it wasn't a valid argument: |
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb |
|
4th November 2012, 03:01 PM | #3897 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
One reason I have confidence in the C14 testing was the labs involved tested not only the shroud sample but three other samples for which the dates were known. The tests were blinded: none of the labs knew which sample was which. All three labs came back with similar results for each sample.
There was a moment when the samples removed from the shroud were out of sight of many of the participants:
Originally Posted by Nature article "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin"
So it is possible the shroud samples were surreptitiously switched with thirteenth century samples while they were being wrapped in foil and sealed in stainless steel containers. Presumably the only person who might have an interest in doing do would be Dr M. S. Tite of the British Museum. I can't see the Archbishop of Turin doing this. Indeed, if the Archbishop wanted to do something underhanded he would have samples of first century linen with him and surreptitiously switch the shroud sample with it. But I suspect that's why both of them were in that room: each could watch the other to ensure neither would switch the samples cut from the shroud. As Dinwar pointed out, this was an extremely well documented sample-taking. Between that and the fact the three labs came up with very similar figures, despite somewhat different cleaning techniques, should remove all doubt over the veracity of the testing. |
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) |
|
5th November 2012, 12:26 AM | #3898 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Yes, no problem.
There isn’t “strong evidence” against the results of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin or an alternative to it. There isn’t any evidence at all. Suppositions, hypothesis ad hoc and non conclusive experiences have been arguing against it as “evidences”. The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is solid evidence. Some mistakes in radiocarbon dating were made in the past, it is true. But they are controlled in the present (they were also in 1988) and none of them affects the Shroud dating. In the last years I have made this question to sindonists: “Do you know any historical test done in the same conditions of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud?” Nobody has answered the question. Because the suppositions, hypothesis ad hoc and no conclusive experiences they call “evidences” are very fast in solidness and control than radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. So, you can imagine some unknown, ideal and no definite circumstances than should refute the radiocarbon dating. Well, unknown circumstances can invalid every natural law, every human knowledge. But reason and science don’t work so. If you want to refute a law or some scientific knowledge you must propose an alternative, specific and testable hypothesis. Otherwise you are doing Science Fiction, not Science. Jus as sindonists do. |
5th November 2012, 04:02 AM | #3899 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
5th November 2012, 06:45 AM | #3900 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Guns?
Hi there!
- I'm currently trying to put together the context of your claim that the carbon dating was valid – and also, of my claim that it wasn't. I'm sure that you have no interest in such things, and it's taking a long time anyway, so I'm thinking that I'll try going off on a "brief" tangent… - Part of my scheme for effective debate is that each side should look for potential "smoking guns" for its side and focus on them first – which might preclude some of the predicted tedium. So, that's what I'll try to do for the moment. - We've already narrowed our focus to the CARBON DATING, so I'll focus on what seems to me the closest thing to a smoking gun against the validity of the dating. I'd suggest that you do the same for the validity of the dating -- you might want to make a list... I'm sure you don't want to listen to me, but I had to make those suggestions anyway…. - My smoking gun involves a few different pieces of evidence, and a line of what seems to me unassailable reasoning. - In a sense, it “starts” with the claim that the image had to involve the use of a recently tortured and crucified human being. There are various reasons for coming to that conclusion -- but for me, the most telling is the interim conclusion that the image is covered with numerous imprints of wounds surrounded by serum clot retraction rings. If that conclusion is correct, we should be forced to then conclude that the image is an imprint of a real body of a recently tortured human being. The next two bits of evidence and attached reasoning concludes that the body was crucified, and that it had to be that of Jesus -- but, I'll save those for later. - What I have so far are claims. That these are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring (25) agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth (1,2,3). http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf - Adler was referring to the research and paper done by Miller and Pellicori as presented in the J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981). I’ll see if I can find the actual paper in the NY State Education Library. The nearly unanimous conclusion of pathologists,physicians and anatomists who studied the Shroud since the beginning of the 20th century is that the Shroud wrapped a dead human body. In summary, the arterial and venous blood flows on the head; the different types of bruises and swelling identified on the face; the flow of watery fluid from the pleural cavity and of blood from the right auricle, which fills with blood on death; the photographically revealed abrasions at the knees, nose and across the shoulder blades; the abnormally expanded rib cage indicating asphyxia; the enlarged pectoral or chest muscles drawn in toward the collarbone and arms; the contraction of the thumbs from an injury to the median nerve; the unusual signs of traumatic shock; the numerous signs of rigor mortis; the post-mortem bleeding; the microscopically precise, invisible reactions around more than 100 scourge marks throughout the body; the coagulated blood stains with serum surrounding borders and clot retraction rings that occur with actual wounds and blood flows, found throughout the front and back of the technology; and the identification of human hemoglobin, human albumin, human whole blood serum, human immunoglobins, and human DNA from the man’s blood marks — are just some of the signs that the Shroud wrapped the body of a dead human male (Antonacci, 2000). http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE/.../Antonacci.pdf - In his book, Antonacci refers to several other documents. - I’ll try to track those down if needs be. --- 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 |
|
5th November 2012, 07:08 AM | #3901 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
I'm sorry, I must have missed it.
Would you please explain how the fact that there is no blood on the cloth that contains a depiction of a physically inaccurate figure of a non-anatomical human being; a cloth that was, apparently, NOT wrapped around the figure in question, and "blood stains" that could not have come from a dead, washed body, is a "smoking gun" AGAINST the 14C dates? |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
5th November 2012, 07:12 AM | #3902 |
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
|
How does any of that point to a first century date?
And if it doesn't, what does it have to do with whether or not the shroud is a forgery? The most important factor is the date of the cloth. Even if you can prove definitively that the shroud was used to wrap a recently tortured and crucified body it is irrelevant. What's important, nay crucial, is when that body was wrapped. The only "smoking gun" for either side in this debate is the age of the shroud. Everything else is irrelevant. |
__________________
"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 |
|
5th November 2012, 07:24 AM | #3903 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Where are the sources?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Jabba, but I'm quite sure everything you've mentioned has already been addressed not only here but on other forums you've anticipated in. You challenged me once to find those posts and I listed them for you here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2848 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...od#post8545728 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2859 Here are a couple of the posts on the subject from this very thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2559 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2892 Why even post up premises which have been rebutted? For the pleasure of reading them dismounted yet again? But at the end of the day, how does any of this refute the C14 dating? |
5th November 2012, 08:16 AM | #3904 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?
Pakeha,
- These posts do address the issue -- but in my opinion, nowhere do they rebut my premises. In order for me to address this more specifically, you’ll need to quote what precisely it is that you believe does rebut my premises. - The claim about the retraction rings is important because if it is true, the probability that a 14th century artist could have forged the shroud without using a recently tortured human being approaches zero. If you want, I’ll explain why. And then, I'll explain how this is the beginning of a smoking gun that rebuts the C14 dating. One step at a time. --- 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 |
|
5th November 2012, 08:28 AM | #3905 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Your smoking gun against C14 dating is something else entirely. Why am I not surprised? You have nothing with which to disprove the C14 dating, Jabba. Admit that, and admit that you're moving on to another topic, and you may regain a shred of respect. Pretending that switching topics wildly is anything but an attempt to hide the fact that you can't address the issues raised on the first topic is further dishonesty on your part.
Quote:
|
5th November 2012, 08:46 AM | #3906 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Very funny, Jabba.
Why not start with these two: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2559 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2892 They're the most recent. Once you've read them, show me how they don't refute your premise. Then we'll go over the posts from the Atheist's Forum, if you need your memory refreshed. |
5th November 2012, 08:54 AM | #3907 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
No it's not. It's part of your attempt to evade proper debate and analysis of the issues.
You claim to be limiting debate to the radiocarbon dating and immediately go off on a tangent. Pathetic. List these alleged experts, their qualifications, their access to, and analysis of, the shroud and their exact statements. Otherwise stop wasting out time. Remember, there is no evidence of blood on the shroud. |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
5th November 2012, 08:58 AM | #3908 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
He's trying to pull a switch. Again.
Rubbish. The alleged blood is irrelevant to the radiocarbon dating. Why not actually do what you claimed you were going to do and address that rather than attempting to pull another fast one? |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
5th November 2012, 09:32 AM | #3909 |
Winking at the Moon
Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16,711
|
Even if everything you claim about the shroud having blood on it was true, which I don't accept and for which you have not shown any evidence to support, there was very little preventing a 14th century artist from using a recently tortured (though anatomically incorrect) human being. This isn't any kind of refutation of the carbon dating.
I really don't think you understand the mores and culture of the 14th century in general, and European artists from that period in particular. |
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader |
|
5th November 2012, 09:51 AM | #3910 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
Hey jabba, look ! Another shroud with the blood of the christ.
http://vimeo.com/3281567 because we all know by your own reasonning that if a cloth has blood, no matter its 14C age, then it proves it was the Chrsit blood, the only source of blood EVER in the middle age and today. |
5th November 2012, 09:54 AM | #3911 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
And also people in the 14th century were complete retard and knew nothing of the christ wound description, they had no litterature source no book describing them, whereas we know better because we could read the english translation : the KJB.
I think I just stopped taking this thread seriously completely with last jabba utter nonsense.
Quote:
|
5th November 2012, 10:10 AM | #3912 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Hey, don't forget the relic at the Basilica of the Holy Blood!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Holy_Blood It's on display three times day and quite the money-spinner from I could see when I was there in June. |
5th November 2012, 10:43 AM | #3913 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
This is from an earlier post of mine about the scourge marks:
It seems like the "scourge marks" provide pretty good evidence that the shroud image was the work of an artist. Do you (Jabba) reject what the author of the site linked to above is claiming? It does seem a bit strange that you would make a claim that the "scourge marks" constituted evidence of authenticity without dealing with the fact that the nature of their placement is prima facie evidence that the "scourge marks" were placed on a two dimensional cloth and were not transferred to the shroud from a three dimensional body. Of course, as others have noted, all evidence that there is any actual blood on the shroud has been thoroughly debunked so making a claim that there is blood on the shroud without acknowledging that seems a bit strange as well. When I first looked into the "scourge marks" I thought the claim was that Jesus was scourged while he was on the cross and I wondered why there wasn't some non scourged areas that were blocked by the wood of the cross. Now I understand that the Jesus was purportedly scourged as he walked along. With that assumption, does the placement of these "scourge marks" look remotely realistic to you? Imagine walking along while somebody is scourging you in the legs. Would you expect every blow to hit your legs at nearly the exact same angle to produce a similar mark all over your legs? |
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb |
|
5th November 2012, 11:12 AM | #3914 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
The only things which could be a "smoking gun" against the C14 dating would be either flaws in the methodology, deliberate fraud on the part of those involved, or scientific data which disputes it. If you cannot establish any of these things with actual evidence, then you have no argument.
Quote:
Your diversion about blood rings is irrelevant. |
5th November 2012, 11:25 AM | #3915 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
How would one even go about making a list of proofs that the C14 dating is valid? The concept doesn't make sense. The process is widely known and has been discussed in detail in this thread. The science behind it is well-known and has been included via reference numerous times. There's not much else to discuss. If the methods are good, and the theory is sound, the results will be good.
Originally Posted by Jabba
|
5th November 2012, 11:31 AM | #3916 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
I don't think anyone here takes the view that the C14 is categorical proof. But the question is - how much confidence should you place on a scientific result such as the C14 compared to the confidence which you think should be placed on what is said and written by shroud believers? Forget the C14 and the shroud for a moment, and lets take a step back to look at what people believed before they had relatively modern scientific answers - before modern science (say from around the time of Galileo) how much do you think people believed they knew about the world around them? The answer is that people believed they knew a great deal. They believed they knew it because of the inerrancy of God’s words (amongst other almost equally doubtful reasons). But what happened when science came along? One by one, every single one of those earlier “facts” was shown to be wrong. Not just slightly wrong, but completely and utterly wrong in almost every conceivable detail. Since then, say over the past 300 years, scientists have provided detailed explanations for how almost every conceivable thing in this universe actually works. A vast number of those explanations have been confirmed with mathematical precision to an almost mind bogglingly unimaginable extent. Even such esoteric things as the mathematical predictions of Quantum Theory and Relativity have been experimentally confirmed to as much as 10 decimal places and more. So what? OK, so here’s “what” - whilst science has been busy explaining literally trillions of billions of things in the most astonishing and revealing detail, all other non-scientific approaches, have been wrestling with only a relatively tiny handful of much simpler problems, and frequently drawing conclusions which quickly turn out to be utter nonsense … especially when it comes to religious issues. What has that to do with C14 and the shroud? Well, it’s the fundamental reason why the starting point for any honest educated person, should be to think that a properly conducted set of objective scientific tests (as the C14 certainly were) should be regarded in a wholly different league to the unsupported and un-publishable claims of what are (in this case) self interested religious fanatics who’s proclamations are following in exactly the same footsteps as all other religious fanatics, such as (for example) the Creationists who were exposed as liars, frauds, and religious nutcases in the Dover Trial. That’s why you should not be imagining that there are “two opposing groups of experts on either side of the argument”. And it’s why you should be asking for shroud believers to restrict their claimed scientific evidence to work that they have genuinely published in well known mainstream science journals … and the answer to that request is that they have no such publications except the Ray Rogers paper. And I don’t suppose we need to explain again why that paper is so terribly unsatisfactory on almost every level imaginable. |
5th November 2012, 11:54 AM | #3917 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by davefoc
The shroud sample is already held to much higher and tougher standards than any archaeological sample ever taken. I've given my personal experience taking archaeological samples as an illustration of standard procedure. To hold it to even higher standards--higher than the highest standards any sample has ever been held to--is simply stupid. It ignores the fact that much more important archaeological data is accepted despite having one-tenth the documentation, and worse, does so without even a shred of justification. There's no REASON to demand that the best-documented archaeo sample of all time be discarded as being not good enough. The very concept is insane. And Jabba's made it clear that the only reason he's trying to do it is as a post-hoc justification to continue clinging to his a priori conclusions. |
5th November 2012, 01:22 PM | #3918 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
|
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
5th November 2012, 02:52 PM | #3919 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
Nope. AFAIR when you do you have deformation, on top of the head, on the side, reason being similar to projection of earth onto a map. But if you except the color and pigment, the technic itself has been reproduced sucessfully. There is not enough information as somebody pointed out to do a 100% reproduction, I am guessing more chemical destructive analysis would be required which would almost certainly refused.
|
5th November 2012, 03:02 PM | #3920 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Demonstrating the image distortion should be easy enough--get a white cloth, a guy, and some green paint (well, any color would work, and chalk would work too). Put the green paint on the guy, have him lay on the cloth, then toss the cloth over his head, like it's shown in the shroud. Take it off, have him wash up, and look at the picture. That'd show what an image of an actual person wrapped in an actual cloth would look like. It won't tell you what an image of an actual person wrapped in a cloth like Jesus was supposed to have been wrapped in would look like--Jabba continues to ignore the fact that the Bible clearly states that the head-cloth was separate from the body, which conforms to known Jewish burial traditions of the time.
The next step is to have two people that look alike (twins?) lie on a flat cloth head-to-head, one facing up and one facing down. Or drape the cloth over them, either way. That's going to get you an image much closer to the shroud's. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|