That makes no sense in terms of logic. As a statistical correlation, however, I believe you are correct.
His hypothesis starts on page 21.
Make sure you donāt have a mouthful of coffee or other refreshing beverage when you read it. I doubt Bill will pay for a new keyboard.
1 Like
Letās try this. Assume for arguments sake you believe Jesus rose from the dead. Does that in any way alter your perspective on the Shroud being real?
Uh uh.
No way to get there mentally?
You are the pro here in psychology but it appears to me that worldview alters how we filter information. Every skeptic here focuses on the carbon dating in isolation of all the other data. This is logical to me based on not believing in the resurrection.
I previously discounted the Shroud based on the carbon dating until some other credible explanations surfaced. I believe in the resurrection and so I am open to these explainations.
1 Like
You know, I am tempted to digress and talk about how utterly ridiculous this āNeutron Absorption Hypothesisā is. But I am more disciplined than that. I did not ask about speculation. I asked about experimental data. Not excuses for it, not (grossly ludicrous) back-o-the-envelope plausibility calculations. Measurements.
This has nothing to do with the resurrection. The fact that the Shroud is too young to have been Jesusā burial cloth does not change by whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. The Bible does not claim that a thirteenth century relic, specifically, is what Jesusā body was wrapped in, nor that a thirteenth-century relic was what remained after he rose. Thatās why thereās plenty of Bible-believing Christians with all sorts of commitment strengths to the literal truth of the burial accounts in particular, who will still acknowledge, that that cloth in particular is just too young to have been the one therein mentioned by well over a millennium. The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is precluded, irrespective of what the Bible has to say about any other cloth.
I said that there are good evidence that the carbon dating was not valid for determining the age of the shroud. And I gave a reference to support that claim. Did you read it? Are the authorā claims based on bugger-all? Does the vanillin test counts as evidence?
See above
I donāt think I have any difficulty putting myself in the position of someone who believes the resurrection of Jesus happened. I am assuming that does not require losing my critical thinking or reasoning ability. And, on that basis, there remains no logical entailment or connection between Jesus rising from the dead and this particular piece of cloth being what he was wearing when it happened.
Do you follow? If not, maybe this will help: Do you think believing the resurrection should make someone doubt the C-14 dating of, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls or other such artifacts?
1 Like
Zero-controls private kitchen experiments are, essentially, bugger-all, when it comes to precision chemistry, and any researcher worth their salt would have understood as much. Of course, they could have accidentallyād themselves to a correct result evenso. But subsequent studies, including at least one in the very same journal, linked to you by yours truly in their first reply to you on this topic in this very thread, revealed unambiguously that they did not. So yes. Bugger-all.
1 Like
Hi Faizal
I agree that the C-14 data is independent of the resurrection as witnessed by my previously discounting the Shroud based on C-14 data.
Do you see though how your worldview will help determine how you weigh evidence.?
The paper I posted has a model and tested hypothesis. It does claim that C-14 test itself is reliable. The unreliability is due to the sample. More work needs to be done with this hypothesis but it is already being dismissed out of hand by a skeptic who may or may not have any expertise on this subject.
1 Like
You think these claims are evidenced, but thatās because (as youāve admitted) you have a bad epistemology where any claim can be considered evidence as long as there are āarguments and counter-argumentsā. By reasonable standards, though, you havenāt provided evidence for most of your claims so far.
4 Likes
Neutron absorption from a burst of radiation? Jesusā body underwent a mini Chernobyl???
These charged particles would be released if certain nuclei were to split, i.e. fission, throughout the body, which would also release neutrons throughout the body.
In any worldview, that paper is technobabble and does not explain anything. It proposes an effect without a sensible or specific cause. It is a stupid waste of time. You might as well run a level 2 diagnostic to determine if there are residual intra-dimensional phanons from an inverse tachyon beam.
1 Like
I readily agree that worldviews will often affect peopleās ability to objectively appraise evidence.
I see no reason that believing in the resurrection of Jesus, by itself, should impair oneās ability to assess the evidence regarding the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. I donāt see that particular belief as the reason for the impaired critical thinking of those who think the shroud is authentic.
I admit, I am completely unfamiliar with the existing literature investigating the release of neutrons from cadavers that are undergoing resurrection. Could you help rectify that, and provide citations for some of the major papers in that field?
5 Likes
I was once a Christian and relics played no part in that. Even if I believed the shroud of Turin once covered Jesusās actual body, nothing about that would entail I believe in the resurrection.
Conversely, a belief in the resurrection doesnāt require believing in the authenticity of the shroud.
There isnāt anything about the shroud that implies we need to invoke a divinely caused resurrection to explain any aspect of the shroud.
Is the fact that there is a likeness of a person on it explained by a resurrection? Nope.
Is any aspect of that image explained by a resurrection? Nope.
Is the blood on it explained by that? Nope.
Is itās size and shape explained by it? Nope.
If it really is 2000 years old, is that explained by a resurrection? Nope.
The whole thing is a complete non-sequitur.
6 Likes
Some common ground. Good enough for now. Thanks
I am not far along with this paper to comment at this point. I see a model he build predicting higher measured results of C-14 based on neutron absorption and how the C-14 is increasing as we get closer to the center of the body.
Have read the entire paper? If so please comment on his predictive model and the florescent measurements that agree with that prediction.
Hi Andrew
What are reasonable standards to back up a claim?
Where am I falling short of those standards.
Thanks
If Jesusā body did not fission, and the paper did not suggest any specific source or cause, there is nothing to predict. It is typical of pseudoscience to add filler content to appear genuine, and that is all this is.
Life is too short, but if you want to waste time on fissioning bodies, help yourself. Make a pilgrimage.
I focus on the fact that the shroud showed up a long time after the start of Christianity, and with no explanation of where it came from. Thatās what makes it look like a clever forgery.
2 Likes
The prediction is the variation in C-14 depending of the location on the shroud.