Hi Tim
Do you consider a counter argument made by someone you agree with debunking a claim?
1 Like
How do you know a claim is debunked? There are arguments and counter arguments.
I consider that question to be an incoherent word-salad.
A pure ad hominem fallacy. I havenât seen one of them for a while.
But you donât need to rely on my word, expertise or reputation. You just need to look at the data in the source you cited.
Hereâs the Turin shroud WAXS plot:
The plot shows the Turin shroud peaks lie between those for the samples labelled 2000 years and 1400 years, suggesting that suggests the shroud material could be old enough to have been around in 33AD.
Unfortunately, the original paper the non-shroud data comes from gives more accurate dates for the other samples:
So using the WAXS technique dates the shroud material as originating sometime between 65AD and 575AD - which means it wasnât around in 33AD, so canât be Jesusâs burial cloth.
The only way around this is to admit that the WAXS technique isnât very accurate, and the results could be hundreds of years out. But that inaccuracy means the WAXS technique doesnât provide much support for the shroudâs authenticity, and more importantly, it canât be used to reject the C14 date for the shroud.
Of course this rebuttal requires having the dates from the graph in the original WAXS paper, not just the dates given in the shroud paper. Once the original dates are known, the problem is obvious to anyone who can work out that 33AD isnât between 65AD and 575AD. The shroud paper, however, only shows the shroud originating sometime between 2000ya and 1400ya, which does include 33AD. I can only think of one reason for changing the key on the WAXS plot to have less precise dates, and thatâs to conceal the fact that the shroud plot-line gives too late a date. Since the author of the shroud paper (Libertato de Caro) was also the lead author of the original paper, thereâs no way he could not have known the more precise dates for the samples, making their omission extremely suspicious.
So @colewd, you donât need my debunking. You can just look at the two plots yourself, and ask how can the shroud be genuine when the WAXS technique dates it after 65AD?.
P.S. You can try answering this too @Giltil
2 Likes
Iâd like to think Iâm more qualified than a high-school teacher, but I fear the only qualification @colewd thinks relevant is the level of agreement with himself.
3 Likes
In other words their claims were âspeech intended to persuade without regard for truthâ â i.e. they were bullshitting.
Itâs a lot easier to get away with this in a journal from a dodgy publisher, or on an amateur website that is invested in the authenticity of a relic. This is why, @colewd, I prefer to simply exclude such sources from the conversation. The alternative is to go over them, and every source they cite with a fine-tooth comb â as @Roy has in this case (thank you Roy) â to keep the bullshit out â and quite frankly lifeâs too short!
2 Likes
There is also the contradiction that I cited in some other âShroudâ thread: The WAXS tests were done on the same sample that was subjected to the C-14 tests that authenticists reject for various reasons. That they accept results from a novel and non-validated method using the very same sample conclusively demonstrates, IMHO, that they have no concern whatsoever for the truth.
3 Likes
Not true. The WAXS tests were not done on the same sample that was used for the carbon dating. Here is what the authors of the WAXS paper said about the sample they analyzed :
The TS sample consisted in a thread taken in proximity of the 1988/radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image, near the so-called Raes sample).
Your claim is unsubstantiated (see above)
Is that really the route you want to go down? No evidence can be debunked because there are arguments and counter-arguments for everything? Thatâs just bad epistemology.
3 Likes
Sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. I did not mean to suggest it was exactly the same fibres that were used in the C-14 tests. Since C-14 dating requires that the sample under test be destroyed, I thought that should have been obvious. I guess not.
The WAXS paper, it is claimed, used fragments from exactly the same small area of the âshroudâ that was used for the C-14 dating. Again, this should be obvious since the keepers of the relic are not exactly going to be handing out free samples to anyone who drives up and requests one.
The authenticists, then, have a big problem if they are going to cite the WAXS paper in their favour. The reason they reject the C-14 data is that the sample used there was subject to smoke damage, or was from a later repair. So was this âsmoke damageâ so localized that it only affected a minute number of fibres on the cloth? Were these ârepairsâ done by miniature elves who could patch an area of only a few millimetres? And, if so, why did three separate samples sent to three separate labs produce the same results?
How do people who believe in the authenticity of the âshroudâ explain this?
4 Likes
This is a good question. And it is why this whole topic seems so strange.
@colewd and @Giltil seem to really need the shroud to be authentic. What does that say about their faith? It is puzzling.
2 Likes
No. The authors said that they used a small sample (a thread) taken in proximity of the radiocarbon area, which leave ample room for the patch hypothesis.
Now, if by any chance there are still out there some fragments of the samples that were distributed for the carbon dating, it would be very interesting to subject them to the WAXS test.
Hi Roy
First I want to say that I am sorry for personalising the comment. My point is a counter argument is not a debunking. Debunking means showing something is clearly false with data. The interval is a confidence level. It does not refute the earlier date as you claim as the date could be earlier than 65 AD. What it does, however, is bring the Carbon dating into question.
The waxes method is a non destructive dating method. There are other non destructive methods being tested that show possible early first century dates.
The here is the resume of the Kelly P Kearse
Kelly P. Kearse holds a BS and MS in Biology and a Ph.D. in Immunology. Following completion of postdoctoral fellowships at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Biochemistry and the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health in Immunology, he became a Principal Investigator in the Experimental Immunology Branch at the National Institutes of Health. After several years, he transferred to the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at East Carolina University School of Medicine to have the opportunity to do both research and teaching. He has authored over forty peer-reviewed research articles in the fields of cell biology and immunology in such journals as the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, and the Journal of Experimental Medicine; and was the Editor in Chief of T Cell Protocols, Development and Activation. In 2000, he semi-retired from laboratory research to relocate to his original hometown and teach high school science, something that he had always wanted to do. He has been a science instructor at Knoxville Catholic High School, in Knoxville, TN for the past twenty years
Since he has experience as a researcher and a teacher his paper explains the blood testing issues clearly. Have you read the paper?
Hi Neil
If the Shroud is real it is physical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. We will never be certain but as more evidence points to authenticity it along with the documented evidence points to the God of Abraham as the creator of the universe. Determining the likely authenticity of the Shroud is a scientific endeavour.
If the evidence points toward the Shroud as a forgery it simply is not a strong piece of supporting evidence.
How did they get this? Did they sneak into the Cathedral of St. John in the middle of the night and steal a sample from the âshroudâ? Is that why they are being so cagey regarding the provenance of their sample?
No, the only reasonable option is that they used some leftover fragment from one of the three 40mg samples used in the C-14 dating. How they got this, your guess is as good as mine. They have not stated this, AFAIK. Here, again, is the passage I had quoted earlier from Hugh Farey:
Fanti claims that this Shroud sample is âa thread taken in proximity of the 1988/ radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image) near the so-called Raes sample.â When this thread was taken and who took it is not mentioned. Was it, in fact extracted from the Raes sample? Why not say so? Or was it extracted, by Luigi Gonella, from the Riserva portion of the strip cut off by Riggi di Numana in 1988? In his paper for Thermochimica Acta, Ray Rogers writes: âI received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample,â and the provenance of these was thoroughly investigated by Thibault Heimburger. Did Fanti get his sample from Gonella? Why not say so?
1 Like
Literally how?
Here, Iâll help. In fact, Iâll give you an even stronger premise for free. I just want to see how on Earth your inference follows. Please, complete the template:
Premise 1: The Shroud of Turin really is Jesus' burial cloth. - - - insert argument here - - - Conclusion: Therefore, the Shroud of Turin is evidence of Jesus' resurrection.
3 Likes
Hi Andrew
Almost all the discussions are simply points and counter points. If something is clearly debunked most people will agree with this independent of the side you are arguing. Rarely are arguments sustained when a point is based on a claim that is most likely false.
Making a claim of an argument being debunked simply based on a counter argument is a false claim. This is simply a rhetorical tactic to distract people from relevant evidence.
I never see it mentioned in these discussions, but there is medieval confirmation that the shroud is a forgery, set out in a memorandum by the Bishop of Troyes:
The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviourâs likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.
Itâs really never been unclear since then.
6 Likes
Yes. Historical documentation provides a whole other line of evidence showing it to be a hoax. Itâs not just science that does so.
1 Like
Your entire posting history here shows this claim to be false.
5 Likes