Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Shroud of Turin
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 31 of 77 (77073)
01-07-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rei
01-07-2004 1:21 PM


Young and just right
You need to deal with it - it's young.
Yes and it is very interesting that with all these apparent sources of error the dates all come up pointing the same time frame that the darn thing first cropped up in history.
Are the "old" shroud supporters actually suggesting that this is just a coincidence? It could be of course. But that is reaching rather a lot isn't it? Has anyone got any comments on this aspect of the dating?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rei, posted 01-07-2004 1:21 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by blitz77, posted 01-08-2004 6:38 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 77 (77101)
01-08-2004 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by blitz77
01-06-2004 8:53 PM


quote:
Interestingly enough, near the facial imprint were two faint imprints; one of a coin that was minted around 29AD, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius, and another if a lepton (a copper piece) from the reign of Pontius Pilate
Even more interestingly your sources disagree on what the coins are:
国内精品久久久久精品_日本乱理伦片在线观看中文字幕_人妻少妇不卡无码视频_最激烈的床震娇喘视频 even claims that the two coins were stuck frm the same die.
I think the claim of the coins is relevant in that it indicates the lengths to which shroud supporters will stretch the evidence, but that hardly supports the idea that the shroud is genuine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by blitz77, posted 01-06-2004 8:53 PM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by blitz77, posted 01-08-2004 6:13 AM PaulK has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 77 (77109)
01-08-2004 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
01-07-2004 3:09 AM


Re: Seeing for ourselves
quote:
There's another inconsistency. The right eye pattern is from the NEGATIVE image while the left eye pattern is from the POSITIVE.
Upon inspection of the coins themselves, I imagine this could be caused by the left eye coin having the markings as an impression/depression, while the markings on the right coin were caused by it being an extrusion, made like a cast or something like that. With a depression, less contact would be made with the linen, causing that region to be lighter, while similarly making the right eye and coin markings darker.
quote:
I would also like to ask why coin images should show up at all. If the image was produced by bacteria from the skin then shouldn't real coins show up as blank areas ? It looks like we have to reject one idea or the other.
Now this is probably a harder problem to explain. Any suggestions other than saying that the bacteria/fungi could grow within the linen due to the conditions inside?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2004 3:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2004 6:12 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 77 (77111)
01-08-2004 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by blitz77
01-08-2004 6:07 AM


Re: Seeing for ourselves
No, if the coins were struck from the same die - as is clearly stated - then they must have the same raised areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by blitz77, posted 01-08-2004 6:07 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 77 (77112)
01-08-2004 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
01-08-2004 2:51 AM


quote:
Even more interestingly your sources disagree on what the coins are:
国内精品久久久久精品_日本乱理伦片在线观看中文字幕_人妻少妇不卡无码视频_最激烈的床震娇喘视频 even claims that the two coins were stuck frm the same die.
If the coins were struck locally, as they probably were, then they'd also probably be made from the same die.
quote:
Much of the copper coinage was struck locally and was of rather poor quality.
Doubts Concerning the Coins Over the Eyes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2004 2:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2004 6:21 AM blitz77 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 77 (77114)
01-08-2004 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by blitz77
01-08-2004 6:13 AM


They can't be identifiable as DIFFERENT coins AND struck from the same die.
Oh, and can I ask about the "actual coins" you referred to in your previous post ? Where they have the same pattern but it is raised on one and depressed on the other ? Where can I see those ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by blitz77, posted 01-08-2004 6:13 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by blitz77, posted 01-08-2004 6:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 77 (77115)
01-08-2004 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
01-08-2004 6:21 AM


from 国内精品久久久久精品_日本乱理伦片在线观看中文字幕_人妻少妇不卡无码视频_最激烈的床震娇喘视频
From the pictures of the proposed coins causing the patterns; the one on the right appears to be a countermark while the one on the left does not. Of course, I wouldn't be sure as I haven't seen the coins in 3d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2004 6:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2004 6:36 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 77 (77116)
01-08-2004 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by blitz77
01-08-2004 6:24 AM


THe site only shows additional "palm" marks as counter marks. The year 30 and 31 galleries show numerous coins with the "crook" symbol - and in every case it appears to be raised. I can't see one example where the "crook" is a depression.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by blitz77, posted 01-08-2004 6:24 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 77 (77117)
01-08-2004 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by NosyNed
01-07-2004 9:10 PM


Re: Young and just right
quote:
Yes and it is very interesting that with all these apparent sources of error the dates all come up pointing the same time frame that the darn thing first cropped up in history.
The "old" supporters seem to suggest that the shroud of turin was probably the cloth of Edessa, which dates back beyond 544 AD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2004 9:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 40 of 77 (77294)
01-09-2004 6:17 AM


Face on Mars
While not directly relevant to the topic, the NASA Face on Mars site shows just how easy it is to use image enhancement to "find" things that aren't there.

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 41 of 77 (77854)
01-11-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
01-03-2004 6:43 PM


OK, finally, I got it together, thanks for your patience.
On June 4, 2000, Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University) was conducting his weekly Bible study lesson. His text was from Exodus Chapter 34, passages that tell us what happened to Moses after encountering God.
In this text, Moses returns from his meeting with God, and as a result of this encouter his face "shone all over". Dr. Scott's point was to take notice that the presence of God, whether it was in person or by the secondary synonym of "presence" resulted in the face of Moses being effected by a source of "light".
Then, suddenly, Dr. Scott abruptly changed gears and said the following:
"Now the Los Angeles Times....and I've told you the Shroud of Turin is not a foundational basis for my faith in the resurrection. But if the resurrection occurred, and if there was a dead body in that Shroud, and if it was Christ - the resurrection would explain the image.
All the research has boiled down to an image caused by a radiation energy source we don't know yet how to define. It put a three dimensional image in the cellulose of these flax fibers that the closer the radiation source to the cloth the deeper the imprint, thus
we have a three dimensional image burned in ....scorched in on one side only.
Now the Los Angeles Times....yesterday in the religion section on the news side points out that this year is one of the rare years the Shroud of Turin will be put on display again this year.
And then they glibly say " carbon 14 dating proved it to be a medieval cloth about 1260 AD "....thus a fraud....well the news media is not always right you know. (audience applause)
....oh they said in 1988 it was proved a fraud.
But in 1986 before it happened the archaeologist William Meecham pointed out in the 1986 Hong Kong Shroud Symposium :
Dr. Scott quoting William Meecham :
" There appears to be an unhealthy consensus approaching the level of dogma among both scientists and lay commentators that C-14 dating will settle the issue once and for all time. This attitude simply contradicts the general perspective of field archaeologists and geologists who view possible contamination as a very serious problem in interpreting the results of radio carbon measurements. I find little awareness of the limitations of the C-14 method. Statements quoted from Shroud researchers both pro and con reveal an unwarranted trust in radio carbon measurement to produce an exact calendar date. I doubt anyone with significant experience in dating archaelogical samples would dismiss the potential danger of contamination and other sources of error. No responsible field archaeologist would trust a single date or a series of dates on a single feature to settle a major historical issue. No responsible radio carbon scientist would claim that it was proven that all contaminants had been removed and that the dating range was its actual calendar date. " END Meecham Quote
Willowtree : Then Dr. Scott proceeded into a long and lengthy explanation of what carbon 14 dating is and how they took three postage stamp size pieces of the Shroud and submitted them for test at three different scientific labs. I will assume that the average person in this discussion knows what C-14 dating is and generally how it is supposed to work.
Dr. Scott quoting William Meecham :
" Since 1988...." ignored by even the Times today...." a number of scientists have carefully examined the results of the C-14 tests and have seriously challenged its results, claiming that the tests were performed in such a manner as to call in to question the reliability of the data. The C-14 test normally reliable under very controlled circumstances was studying an object subjected to many historical events and highly contaminated. The C-14 test was out of balance with many other scientific tests that confirmed the antiquity of the cloth.
The data was now subjected to serious scrutiny by the scientific community. The scientists that conducted the carbon 14 tests were very concerned with the potential of foreign elements that might effect the test on the Shroud as was noted in the report in Nature Magazine.
Through out history the Shroud was exposed to many and varied contaminants. The exposure of the Shroud linen to washing and soap prior to its being used as a burial cloth, many other contaminants combined with questionable cleaning of the test patches likely threw off test results. Such contaminants as ointments, aloes, and myrrh, sweat, blood, saliva, candle wax, and smoke from the candles, finger oils from continued handling from the faithful in earlier years, atmospheric dust, limestone dust from the tomb, calcium carbonite, dirt, travertine argonite, pollen, mites, mold, mildew, and the smoke soot and steam water from the 1532 fire where it was doused, all contibute to the litany of contaminants that left their marks on the Shroud.
Dr. Dimitri Kucznietszov of the Bio Palomar Laboratory in Moscow, developed a laboratory model in 1994 to simulate the physical chemical conditions of the 1532 chambery fire. His findings reported in the Journal of Archaeological Science (Jan. 1996) maintained that a chemical modification of the textile cellulose of the Shroud - carbonization via the introduction of carboxyl COOH resulting from the 1532 fire impacted the C-14 dating, this rejuvenation of the linen was caused when the intense heat (960 degrees celsius) generated by the fire and the super steam vapor caused from the dousing with water created a chemical action of melting silver from the reliquary and the silk backing of the Shroud with cellulose of the linen fibers adding C-14 isotopes and thereby suggesting a younger rejuvenated cloth. Test samples were taken from a restored area of salvage. " END Meecham QUOTE
Dr. Scott :
"....The Times didn't tell us that this morning did they ? "
As reported in the Journal radio carbon in 1986 scientists used C-14 to date an Egyptian mummy linen....as well as two Peruvian linen cloths....they knew the age of these they dug them out of graves.
" It demonstrated that the method is somewhat wanting in accuracy with regard to linen. The Egyptian mummy linen the dates ranged from 3440 to 4517 spanning eleven hundred years. The known age of the cloth was 3000 BC. The closest date C-14 could produce was 2528 requiring a calibration of 472 years to correct it. "
" Potentially the most damaging single piece of evidence to controvert the 1988 test results comes from the reported disclosure that there was a secret dating of the Shroud conducted at a California nuclear accelerator facility in 1982. Separate ends of a single thread (little smaller than a postage stamp) were dated with one end dating 200 AD and the other end of the same thread dating 1000 AD....the wide divergence in dating on the same thread should be alarming to those who consider the 1988 test definitive. " END Journal QUOTE
Dr. Scott :
" The Shroud of Turin has a history and it deserves....its been subjected to scrutiny considerable and it deserves better just like the Resurrection deserves better than turning it down because it presupposes a miracle.
Now they've proved there's no dyes, no paints, its a scorched theory, it was scorched on with some energy source best described as light....light and heat.
British philosopher G. Oprey Ash suggests that Jesus underwent an unparalleled transformation in the tomb.
Ash wrote " Its least intelligible that the phsical change of the body at the resurrection may have released a brief and violent burst of radiation, perhaps scientifically identifiable - perhaps not, which scorched the cloth. In this case the Shroud image is a quasi-photograph of Christ....some physicists begin to suspect that the Shroud was exposed to a milliburst of radiation that seared the Shroud with a burst of blinding light rather than heat. " END Ash QUOTE
Dr. Scott :
Dr. Anthony (undiscernable last name) of Rhode Island states :
" I'd suggest that the radiation energy that imprinted the bodily image in the cloth altered the fibers of the cloth and changed the relative number of carbon isotopes on the linen material. This would render radio-dating the age of this unique cloth impossible to determine. Transmutation of elements , that is changing one element into another or an isotope into another isotope of the same element on the order of 10 to the 6th power to 10 to the 8th power calories and occur with wavelengths of about 10 to 4 angstroms. As a matter of fact it is these kinds of energetic cosmic rays from the sun that are the cause of the formation of carbon 14 in the first place. END QUOTE
Dr. Scott :
" So if that burst of life occurred the carbon 14 molecules would of had a change rejuvenated in the process. So much for the god of this world that is determined to make doubters instead of faithers. "
Dr. Scott's conclusion :
" I don't know whether Jesus was in that Shroud, I don't even know whether the Shroud is genuine or not....
I only want to say one thing : The difference between the evidence and reliability of C-14 dating the Shroud, and the evidence to prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ apart from the Shroud, is like trying to compare Mt. Everest with one of these low hills around in the city limits of Los Angeles. But you won't find the mouthpiece of the god of this world - the media proclaiming the miracle of the Resurrection as one-sidedly and as absolute fact, as this attempt to totally dismiss the Shroud of Turin on such shaky foundation.
I am convinced a dead body was in it and had all the identical marks of Christ and something caused a scorched image , three dimensional and that if the Resurrection occurred and if God's presence is light as we see through scripture, and if that impact of the immortalization of His body occurred I don't have to look for another explanation - C-14 is out the window cause God's life in Christ that scorched the image blew the C-14 ratio....now back to Exodus 34.....
END of Dr. Scott's lesson pertaining to the Shroud of Turin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2004 6:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2004 10:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2004 10:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 44 by MarkAustin, posted 01-12-2004 4:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 58 by Trixie, posted 01-14-2004 3:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 42 of 77 (77881)
01-11-2004 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object
01-11-2004 6:52 PM


On June 4, 2000, Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University) was conducting his weekly Bible study lesson.
Please stop with the appeal to authority, already, Willowtree. Dr. Ed Vinson (Ph.D. The Ohio State University) beseeches you to. We Buckeyes outrank a pinchi California Cardinal any day, besides.
Really, Scott's PhD in education carries about as much weight in Shroudology as my PhD in chemistry carries in Medieval Coptic Literature. Stop it. We know he has one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-11-2004 6:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-12-2004 8:43 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-12-2004 9:04 PM Coragyps has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 77 (77882)
01-11-2004 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object
01-11-2004 6:52 PM


Dating
I doubt anyone with significant experience in dating archaelogical samples would dismiss the potential danger of contamination and other sources of error. No responsible field archaeologist would trust a single date or a series of dates on a single feature to settle a major historical issue. No responsible radio carbon scientist would claim that it was proven that all contaminants had been removed and that the dating range was its actual calendar date.
There seems to be only two issues with the dating:
1) The possibility of contamination
2) Single feature dating
Others here have refered to the amount of contamination that would be needed to move a 1300's date back to the first century. Given the treatment that each of the labs gave the fabric to remove contamination can someone show how there can be so much contamination AND it not be noticed by any of 3 independant labs?
The list of contaminants given include some that would move the date back in time before 1300's, including washing it before it was used as a burial shroud.
What does this dating of a "single feature mean". Each of the labs had other samples to date. They did not know what any of them were. The other dates were correct based on other evidence. Why does that work for those other samples?
If single feature means taking only one piece of evidence then the historical records of the shroud first appearing around the 1300's is separate evidence. Others have suggested that it appeared earlier. Why do they think this other artifact was the shroud? Odd that this would come up now and not decades or centuries ago? What new research was done?
The C-14 test was out of balance with many other scientific tests that confirmed the antiquity of the cloth
What scientific tests?
All the research has boiled down to an image caused by a radiation energy source we don't know yet how to define.
Odd, I've read reports that the image is, in fact, painted on. Who claims that it is painted on? Who claims otherwise? In each case why do they claim that based on what evidence?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-11-2004 6:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-12-2004 9:00 PM NosyNed has replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 44 of 77 (78064)
01-12-2004 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object
01-11-2004 6:52 PM


quote:
All the research has boiled down to an image caused by a radiation energy source we don't know yet how to define. It put a three dimensional image in the cellulose of these flax fibers that the closer the radiation source to the cloth the deeper the imprint, thus we have a three dimensional image burned in ....scorched in on one side only.
And a perfectly circular argument.
Why is the image correct, and not a panoramic view? Because of an unknown radiation source.
How do we know there was an unknown radiation source? Because of the perfect image.
You must first demonstrate the existance of this field independently of the Shroud, and then show that this case applies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-11-2004 6:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 45 of 77 (78102)
01-12-2004 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coragyps
01-11-2004 10:25 PM


Your hasty remarks are unnecessary.
The only reason I have a source cite is to buffer myself from an accusation of plagarism.
Argument from authority ? You bet.
Rhetorically speaking, what's wrong with that ?
I am not bound by your constricting methods of argument.
If this is all you can say pertaining to the post/evidence then this is evidence in itself for the validity of what was said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2004 10:25 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2004 9:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024