Psssst! Whilst we've got these two slugging it out on here, the rest of us can creep back to the Brexit thread and have a civilised chat! Dont tell them!!
Psssst! Whilst we've got these two slugging it out on here, the rest of us can creep back to the Brexit thread and have a civilised chat! Dont tell them!!
Simon Blease
Monmouth
But then he was a charlatan.Originally Posted by Wheeze
Ray Rogers most certainly wasn’t.
Rogers conclusion on dating is clear.
“The combined evi- dence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly differ- ent from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for de- termining the age of the shroud”
Which is the consensus view. The raes corner is not representative. Nor is the date.
But then the RC date was always bunk, the only question was why. Too much evidence was against it,
They made basic schoolboy errors with sampling, ignored red flags, kept others away from even advising and so did more than anyone ever has to discredit RC.
But the point I brought this in with: the daters were interested in validating their own preconceptions, so scientific process ( like questioning red flags) went out of the door. Its called confirmation bias.
RC has had its moments: like mummy wrappings much older than the body contained in them.
So it is one piece of evidence not proof of anything.
The verifiable chain of custody of sudarium is many centuries older. Dating tests not needed to confirm that.
I suggest you study before comment. It is fascinating.
Anyway this is off topic, so I at least will do other things.
Last edited by Oracle; 10-12-2019 at 05:54 PM.
it's funny, though, isn't it, that in the 2003 paper I linked to Rogers says that:
"All these observations suggest that the sample for the radiocarbon age determination came from an area, which had been darned, a phenomenon that must not surprise, because the Shroud may have been restored during his complicate [sic] history, especially after it was damaged by a fire in 1532. Therefore the 1988 radiocarbon age determination, which indicated that the Shroud was Medieval, seems highly unreliable. A second radiocarbon analysis should be very advisable, at least on the charred materials removed during the June-July 2002 restoration"
1) No other study has shown any evidence for darning, invisible stitching or other "repair" in the area sampled.
2) If you radiocarbon date an area of burning you will find out the date of the burning, not of the original cloth.
So both he and you misunderstand radiocarbon dating. In the same article, Rogers states that the protocols for the dating programme were "the best that could be used in the world". No matter what the people in the three labs that carried out the dating thought about the date of the shroud, that isn't going to affect the reading from the mass spectrometer or the slow counter. You, however, are clutching at straws to confirm a date you like. THAT is confirmation bias.
You still haven't come up with any scientific evidence to support any of your points or any peer-reviewed papers which provide such evidence. You haven't been able to counter the fact that the later "tests" you cite are a) unproven techniques and b) were carried out on pieces of material which were not veritably from the shroud. You seem to have a downer on radiocarbon dating, but only when you, personally, don't agree with the results.
You continue to ignore the more recent work on the sampled fabric by Jul and Free Waters in a peer reviewed scientific journal in 2010. The conclusion? "We present a photomicrographic investigation of a sample of the Shroud of Turin, split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona. In contrast to other reports on less-documented material, we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants".
So yes, off you toddle, like you always do when overwhelmed by actual evidence, rather than opinion and pseudoscience.
Last edited by Dave_Mole; 10-12-2019 at 07:19 PM.
....it's all downhill from here.
Rogers changed his mind on the basis of overwhelming evidence
The arrogance to presume you know more about dating than a professional physicist who had studied it for two decades ie Rogers is astounding. And that is why much of this stuff is discounted before investigated. You ( and many sceptics) let apriori prejudice get in the way of science, much like the daters.
Ultimately the question was never about the RC date per se, the other evidence so far refutes it the question is only why it was wrong.
There was no definitive answer for how the mark was formed, other than the nature as thin layer oxidation , the shallowness rules out Maillard reactions.
The 3D projection , distortion and shallowness make radiation the most encompassing explanation, but only a UV laser has actually mimicked it.
Study it and you will find out.
Even I get psd off with endless contradictions, so your wish is my command wheeze.Psssst! Whilst we've got these two slugging it out on here, the rest of us can creep back to the Brexit thread and have a civilised chat! Dont tell them!!
The most interesting brexit poll is the one that says Brexiteers don’t hold it against remainers, but remainers view Brexiteers negatively, which is born out on these forums.
Labour voters also seem to think that everyone else is a lower form of life.
Quite how they pretend a moral high ground whilst standing on the same hill as corbyn is questionable.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...tion_arguments
Last edited by Oracle; 10-12-2019 at 07:42 PM.
Rogers was a thermal analysis chemist. He couldn't get his papers published in academic journals because they don't stand up to analysis. His criticism isn't of the technique, but of the area of the shroud the samples came from. Which have been refuted. You don't accept that, yet can't supply any peer-reviewed evidence as to why.The arrogance to presume you know more about dating than a professional physicist who had studied it for two decades
You've quite clearly demonstrated that you know nothing about the technique. Your answer above proves this. You clearly don't understand the fundamentals.
Your arguments are now circling in on themselves, as they always do.
you've repeated this. It's you who have the a priori prejudice, desperately wanting the shroud to relate to "Christ" so much that you rely on pseudo science. How could anyones belief affect a mass spectrometer?let apriori prejudice get in the way of science, much like the daters.
You prefer to offer opinions, not fact. Opinions informed by religious belief and a need for the shroud to relate to "Christ".
You call yourself a scientist. You clearly are not. You don't have the basic critical faculties to operate in that area.
Last edited by Dave_Mole; 10-12-2019 at 08:00 PM.
....it's all downhill from here.
DM re read your post. Read the definition of the word arrogance.
Accept that you know nothing about any of it, and you will argue whatever I say. Then move on.
There was I thinking fell runners were an affable bunch. My bad.
Last edited by Oracle; 10-12-2019 at 08:09 PM.
I'm sat here looking at posts from it.Read the definition of the word arrogance
....it's all downhill from here.
...and now we're into Phase 3 of the Oracle Cycle. Where he gives up in the face of overwhelming evidence, but retreats throwing his toys out of the pram via personal insults.Accept that you know nothing about any of it, and you will argue whatever I say.
....it's all downhill from here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote