Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[partinobodycular]

The samples speak for themselves.

No they don't. Not until we, or some independent experts get the opportunity to confirm them. Which is seemingly never going to happen.

All that you've done is amassed all the reports from all the supposed Eucharistic miracles and then claimed that thanks to their sheer numbers they can't possibly be wrong.

Please try to stick to one miracle at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the sites were utterly useless.
Don’t suppose Zurich told you they got a 1000 year error in the pretrial test. For sure they dated a sample. Cheated on the results a bit too. But the main problem was because they took nobody who knew anything about shroud chemistry, and they knew nothing either , they got even the basics of sampling wrong. Thhey failed to follow either the sampling protocol or chemical analysis recommended by meacham, net result They tested a mediaeval repair, chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. Garbage in. Garbage out.

Once again, find valid sources for such claims. So far you have nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I told you before wiki is bunk.

Read Rogers book and see where the samples came from.
There were a variety.

it is because of religious prejudice the daters were useless, they excluded all who knew anything about the shroud.

You are not interested in science.


Read

LOL!! Wiki is far more reliable than anything that you have ever posted. "Wiki is bunk" is the claim of science deniers. Wiki has links to its sources. And do not accuse others of being science deniers.

If you understood carbon dating you would right away no why the claims of shroud believers are in your terms "bunk". But you would probably refuse to learn the math. Radiocarbon dating is based upon the exponential decay of C14. The result of that is that a very old sample, with no C4 takes only a very small dose of C4 to give an artificially young age. For example when creationists try to radiocarbon items that have no original C14 left such as fossils. But it works the other way for younger samples. It takes an inordinately large amount of contamination to give an artificially young date to a sample that was not all that old (in radio carbon terms) to start with. It would take about 2/3 replacement to 1/3 original to give the dates given.

Sorry, but the C14 dating totally refute the shroud claims.

 

[Mountainmike]

Can you read?

The errors of radio dating were because they dated a mediaeval repair piece every characteristic physical and chemical are different to the shroud itself. It had little old material in it. It was several times the density, not least because of dyed cotton and it had young linen with vanillin unlike the body of the shroud. UV fluorescence proved that area - was like the raes sample and unlike the rest of the shroud.

Rogers knew what the main shroud was chemically and microscopically. He tested it years before.

But the idiots who sampled it / dated it had no idea. They excluded anyone who knew anything about the shroud, They systemically ignored the agreed test protocol, or the chemical characterisation which is simply good practice but also demanded by meacham. They also cheated the stats. They let religious bias get in the way of good science.

I know more about Radio dating and the shroud than you ever will.

LOL!! Wiki is far more reliable than anything that you have ever posted. "Wiki is bunk" is the claim of science deniers. Wiki has links to its sources. And do not accuse others of being science deniers.

If you understood carbon dating you would right away no why the claims of shroud believers are in your terms "bunk". But you would probably refuse to learn the math. Radiocarbon dating is based upon the exponential decay of C14. The result of that is that a very old sample, with no C4 takes only a very small dose of C4 to give an artificially young age. For example when creationists try to radiocarbon items that have no original C14 left such as fossils. But it works the other way for younger samples. It takes an inordinately large amount of contamination to give an artificially young date to a sample that was not all that old (in radio carbon terms) to start with. It would take about 2/3 replacement to 1/3 original to give the dates given.

Sorry, but the C14 dating totally refute the shroud claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I told you before wiki is bunk.

Read Rogers book and see where the samples came from.
There were a variety.

it is because of religious prejudice the daters were useless, they excluded all who knew anything about the shroud.

You are not interested in science.


Read

I did read. You did not. You supported my point. Gonella was part of the team that studied the shroud. They all agreed to no private sampling at all. Yet Gonella is now claiming that he privately sampled the shroud. In other words his actions alone tell us that he is a liar. Did he lie when he promised to obey the rules that everyone agreed to or did he lie when he told Rodgers that his samples came from the shroud? Either way he has shown himself to be a liar and his samples are worthless as a result.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you read?

The errors of radio dating were because they dated a mediaeval repair piece every characteristic physical and chemical are different to the shroud itself. It had little old material in it. it was dyed cotton and young linen with vanillin unlike the body of the shroud. UV fluorescence proved that area was unlike the rest of the shroud.
Rogers knew what the main shroud was chemically and microscopically. He tested it years before.

But the idiots who sampled it dated it had no idea. They excluded anyone who knew anything about the shroud, They systemically ignored the agreed test protocol, or the chemical characterisation which is simply good practice but also demanded by meacham.

I know more about Radio dating and the shroud than you ever will.

Are you trying to make me laugh? If you understood the shroud and radiocarbon dating you would not make such a claim.

Now you are simply digging an even deeper hole. Not only are you claiming that Gonella was a liar, but that he was incompetent as well. The whole group agreed to where the samples came from. That includes Gonella. If he thought that they were from repaired areas he should have been able to see them. And experts have debunked the "repaired area" claim as well. If you want to claim that there were repairs you need to demonstrate that such a technology occurred at the time of the damage. It does not even appear to exist today.

You are just diffing a deeper and deeper hole. You first supported my claim that Gonella was a liar and now you are claiming that he was incompetent. Why trust any supposed fibers from him?

 

[Mountainmike]

Which shows you know nothing about the shroud.
Or indeed a chain of custody trace by heimberger that settled the issue you claim.

The science shows the RC dates were false.
The sample was chemically , structurally , physically different.

Even the sample density documented by the daters is way different to density of the body of the shroud. That alone disproves the dating.

It isn’t jut thread tests. Surface fluorescence is way different.

serious scientists long since discounted the rc date for a mass of reasons.

End of conversation till you study the science of the shroud not “ sceptic world” view of it.

Are you trying to make me laugh? If you understood the shroud and radiocarbon dating you would not make such a claim.

Now you are simply digging an even deeper hole. Not only are you claiming that Gonella was a liar, but that he was incompetent as well. The whole group agreed to where the samples came from. That includes Gonella. If he thought that they were from repaired areas he should have been able to see them. And experts have debunked the "repaired area" claim as well. If you want to claim that there were repairs you need to demonstrate that such a technology occurred at the time of the damage. It does not even appear to exist today.

You are just diffing a deeper and deeper hole. You first supported my claim that Gonella was a liar and now you are claiming that he was incompetent. Why trust any supposed fibers from him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which shows you know nothing about the shroud.
Or indeed a chain of custody trace by heimberger that settled the issue you claim.

The science shows the RC dates were false.
The sample was chemically , structurally , physically different.

Even the sample density documented by the daters is way different to density of the body of the shroud. That alone disproves the dating.

It isn’t jut thread tests. Surface fluorescence is way different.

serious scientists long since discounted the rc date for a mass of reasons.

End of conversation till you study the science of the shroud not “ sceptic world” view of it.

Nope, Only science deniers claim that they were false. And worse yet you have to jump into conspiracy theories to support your claims of why the dates were wrong.

You simply do not understand how C14 dating works at all or why it is so hard to contaminate something of the shrouds fake claimed age. You only have claims of differences by dubious, if not bogus sources. A source once it has been shown to be dishonest cannot be trusted and that is what happened with yours.

The shroud was proven to be a fake, but the good news is that that does not refute the Jesus story.

 

[Mountainmike]

You really don’t get it do you?
Too lazy to read the science.
Your sceptic sourcebook nonsense is 20 years out of date.
This isn’t contamination.

Neither the cotton NOR the linen are representative of the shroud. It isn’t just vanillin, the linen fibres are like garden canes. Neither The diameter nor pitch nor chemistry match the rest of the shroud. The entire section is a skilful replacement that provably doesn’t match the chemistry or structure of the rest of the shroud.
The daters were incompetents who failed to implement either the sampling protocol or the chemical composition analysis, or take up the recommendations of the ONLY experienced archeologist dater involved: meacham.
So the daters broke every rule in the book. And as foi lab data showed even fiddled the results afterwards too. Shameful. But true.

if you want to see religious confirmation bias read Harry gove and the daters emails and messages all the way from the start. Gove wasn’t interested in dating it, he wanted to discredit it. The correspondence is in Marino’s book. All 500 pages of it.

good order.
Study the science not sceptic nonsense. Eg Rogers book.
Before discuss with someone whose read every good book ever written on it.
Me.

It was up to the daters to explain why none of the other evidence fits.
Like the 60 point forensic correspondence with the much older sudarium, enough to prove it covered the same body.

the date was always a nonsense. The only question was why.
Simple answer? The daters were incompetent , ignoring the protocols.

Nope, Only science deniers claim that they were false. And worse yet you have to jump into conspiracy theories to support your claims of why the dates were wrong.

You simply do not understand how C14 dating works at all or why it is so hard to contaminate something of the shrouds fake claimed age. You only have claims of differences by dubious, if not bogus sources. A source once it has been shown to be dishonest cannot be trusted and that is what happened with yours.

The shroud was proven to be a fake, but the good news is that that does not refute the Jesus story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really don’t get it do you?
Too lazy to read the science.
Your sceptic sourcebook nonsense is 20 years out of date.
This isn’t contamination.

Neither the cotton NOR the linen are representative of the shroud. It isn’t just vanillin, the linen fibres are like garden canes. Neither The diameter nor pitch nor chemistry match the rest of the shroud. The entire section is a skilful replacement that provably doesn’t match the chemistry or structure of the rest of the shroud.
The daters were incompetents who failed to implement either the sampling protocol or the chemical composition analysis, or take up the recommendations of the ONLY experienced archeologist dater involved: meacham.
So the daters broke every rule in the book. And as foi lab data showed even fiddled the results afterwards too. Shameful. But true.

if you want to see religious confirmation bias read Harry gove and the daters emails and messages all the way from the start. Gove wasn’t interested in dating it, he wanted to discredit it. The correspondence is in Marino’s book. All 500 pages of it.

good order.
Study the science not sceptic nonsense. Eg Rogers book.
Before discuss with someone whose read every good book ever written on it.
Me.

It was up to the daters to explain why none of the other evidence fits.
Like the 60 point forensic correspondence with the much older sudarium, enough to prove it covered the same body.

the date was always a nonsense. The only question was why.
Simple answer? The daters were incompetent , ignoring the protocols.

So what? There was no cotton or linen woven into the shroud. It would take an immense amount of new fibers to throw off the date. You sources have all been debunked. This is why you should learn how radiometric carbon dating is done. That way when people give you bogus claims you could recognize them too. All of the areas sampled would have had to have been examples of reweaving. There is no sign of any reweaving. There is no magical invisible reweaving method known

You can keep repeating busted claims and you will continue to be wrong because you refuse to learn even the basics of science.

Let's see, who is more likely to be incompetent. The scientists chosen by other professionals for the quality of their work, or an internet amateur that refuses to even learn the basics of radiometric dating?

 

[Zoii]

On the shroud I’ve listed eg “ ray Rogers , chemist perspective on the shroud or meachams “ rape of the shroud” Marino’s “ shroud radio carbon dating “ Adlers works, several times before . Villeneuve of los alamos confirmed all Rogers did. Why should I waste my time? You won’t read them.

In all this time you’ve not looked at a single tissue section or the pathologists notes, on Eucharistic miracles.

You have no interest in the science. Only in trying to discredit it apriori

Look Mike its totally okay you want to believe in miracles. Noone are criticising that. If you want to believe in the Eucharist, fine, it causes no harm and makes many feel good and spiritually secure.

The comments here merely point out that non Christians (and many Christians as well, no doubt) challenge your lack of scientific evidence. You have provided nothing but heresay from biased accounts, but no peer reviewed papers from reputable scientific journals. Your accounts certainly are not replicable, which is a scientific requirement.

On that basis there's little point in making personal remarks or getting frustrated that most here do not support your view that's based on faith and not evidence. Please stop rehashing the same unverified arguments.

 

[Mountainmike]

Meanwhile, I am the one quoting science documents:
subjunction is quoting sceptic nonsense.

I get your scepticism overrides your willingness to examine science that disproves it.

But please?
Unless you are willing to discuss the scientific evidence - which on the shroud it is now the overwhelming view the RC daters screwed up.
Then stay out of the discussion.

Where would you like to start? Try the UV fluorescence pictures taken by sturp that show the entire raes- radiocarbon area is chemically different to the rest of shroud.
Or what about the unarguable discrepancies in the fabric density between the shroud samples and the average density of the shroud.
Not to mention the vanillin, linen structure differences and presence of dye and cotton. All different to the rest of the shroud.

What about the 60 point forensic correspondence between sudarium and shroud that proves they covered the same body, and so the shroud is far older.

the shroud is real blood ( states porphyrin chemist Adler) and pre and post Mortem torture pathology, some of which eg serum, could not have been seen back in mediaeval times since it needs uv sources give see it. So it’s not an artwork.


It’s nothing to do with how I feel.
It’s the science. Engage with it, or stay out of discussion.

start with “ ray Rogers - chemists perspective on the shroud”
When you have read it we can have an educated discussion.
Try Works by Adler , later Villeneuve

read “ rape of the shroud “ by meacham. The ONLY archeologist involved who is absolutely scathing of the behaviour of the RC labs.

It’s fascinating sceptics refuse to engage with it.
As Col Jessup said in “ a few good men” “ you can’t handle the truth”

And I’ll keep referring to these things until one of you addresses the evidence not your apriori faith based rejection of it.

I really don’t get why sceptics feel so threatened by the shroud.
It is an ancient artefact and probably genuine, since the pathologist verified torture was unique. Jesus was real and so was his crucifixion, and unique method. Like Emperor Augustus, pontius pilate and Herod, there is evidence of them all.
the shroud has minerals, pollens and arguably plants from around Jerusalem,

Only an erroneous date taken by daters ignoring all the agreed protocols , so they dated a repair, stands in the way of accepting it. All the other evidence disagree with daters. It’s the date that’s wrong.

if you would like to discuss the forensic science of Eucharistic miracles, instead of your faith based rejection of them, we might get somewhere on that too.
Like… what do you say they are if not heart myocardium ( and what’s your qualification to say it?). The sections are out there to see.

Look Mike its totally okay you want to believe in miracles. Noone are criticising that. If you want to believe in the Eucharist, fine, it causes no harm and makes many feel good and spiritually secure.

The comments here merely point out that non Christians (and many Christians as well, no doubt) challenge your lack of scientific evidence. You have provided nothing but heresay from biased accounts, but no peer reviewed papers from reputable scientific journals. Your accounts certainly are not replicable, which is a scientific requirement.

On that basis there's little point in making personal remarks or getting frustrated that most here do not support your view that's based on faith and not evidence. Please stop rehashing the same unverified arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meanwhile, I am the one quoting science documents:
subjunction is quoting sceptic nonsense.

I get your scepticism overrides your willingness to examine science that disproves it.

But please?
Unless you are willing to discuss the scientific evidence - which on the shroud it is now the overwhelming view the RC daters screwed up.
Then stay out of the discussion.

Where would you like to start? Try the UV fluorescence pictures taken by sturp that show the entire raes- radiocarbon area is chemically different to the rest of shroud.
Or what about the unarguable discrepancies in the fabric density between the shroud samples and the average density of the shroud.
Not to mention the vanillin, linen structure differences and presence of dye and cotton. All different to the rest of the shroud.

What about the 60 point forensic correspondence between sudarium and shroud that proves they covered the same body, and so the shroud is far older.

the shroud is real blood ( states porphyrin chemist Adler) and pre and post Mortem torture pathology, some of which eg serum, could not have been seen back in mediaeval times since it needs uv sources give see it. So it’s not an artwork.


It’s nothing to do with how I feel.
It’s the science. Engage with it, or stay out of discussion.

start with “ ray Rogers - chemists perspective on the shroud”
When you have read it we can have an educated discussion.
Try Works by Adler , later Villeneuve

read “ rape of the shroud “ by meacham. The ONLY archeologist involved who is absolutely scathing of the behaviour of the RC labs.

It’s fascinating sceptics refuse to engage with it.
As Col Jessup said in “ a few good men” “ you can’t handle the truth”

And I’ll keep referring to these things until one of you addresses the evidence not your apriori faith based rejection of it.

I really don’t get why sceptics feel so threatened by the shroud.
It is an ancient artefact and probably genuine, since the pathologist verified torture was unique. Jesus was real and so was his crucifixion, and unique method. Like Emperor Augustus, pontius pilate and Herod, there is evidence of them all.
the shroud has minerals, pollens and arguably plants from around Jerusalem,

Only an erroneous date taken by daters ignoring all the agreed protocols , so they dated a repair, stands in the way of accepting it. All the other evidence disagree with daters. It’s the date that’s wrong.

if you would like to discuss the forensic science of Eucharistic miracles, instead of your faith based rejection of them, we might get somewhere on that too.
Like… what do you say they are if not heart myocardium ( and what’s your qualification to say it?). The sections are out there to see.

Sorry, but failed again. The scientific view is that the shroud is a fraud. One thing that convinces people is how bad the sources that science deniers try to use. The C14 date is reliable. You won't even try to figure out how you got it wrong.

 

[Mountainmike]

read the science.

then comment.

The shroud is the most studied artefact in history.

Many books have been produced on it, I have most of the important ones.
The conference papers would fill a small room. See shroud.com.

The overwhelming concensus now is that the daters tested a dyed mediaeval repair whose textile, chemical and physical properties were very different . They also failed to honour the protocols and testing that might have saved them from such a mistake.

Most of the other evidences points at.
- A real crucifixion victim with pre and post mortem pathology unknown (and invisible) in medieval times. It is real blood and serum that forensic matches other cloths, that have provably not been near each other for at least 1500 years. So it is not possibly an artwork.

- The cloth is ancient, and various aspects show it spend a lot of time in Jerusalem. Including mineral dirt from the feet. So that is where it originated

- The crucifixion method was unique that points at one recorded owner. Jesus.

- The only way anyone has come close to reproducting the mark in chemical terms is body centric radiations. eg corona discharge, uv etc.
Rogers also suggested a maillard reaction from theory, but failed to produce experimental evidence to show it would produce a mark with similar properties (which UV and corona have ), he also failed to explain adequately, and certainly did not back up experimentally, why mailard gases would stay so close to the body and not diffuse to allow the photo definition of the image.

That is the overwhelming view of science. Lots of it.

If you disagree , you are not disagreeing with me but the many scientists who have actually researched it! Read their papers and books and challenge them.

Sorry, but failed again. The scientific view is that the shroud is a fraud. One thing that convinces people is how bad the sources that science deniers try to use. The C14 date is reliable. You won't even try to figure out how you got it wrong.

 

[partinobodycular]

Meanwhile, I am the one quoting science documents:

I admit that your posts tend to be verbose, so I may have skimmed over some of the longer ones, but that being said I can't recall you quoting even one legitimate scientific document.

In fact I have continually begged you to do so, but so far nothing but claims. However I'm willing to keep giving you the opportunity to change my mind. So if you could give us a link to a legitimate scientific article that corroborates your posts it would go a long way to lending your posts a modicum of credibility, because at the moment they don't have any.

Looking forward to your link!!!

 

[Mountainmike]

The shroud is the most researched artefact in history.
Enough to fill a small library, with books, papers and the rest.
Shroud.com lists conferehces, proceedings and papers and a myriad of books.

Read it. “ a chemists perspective on the shroud” Rogers.
Or not. Your choice.

Ive quoted science. Like U.K. flouresecence , vanillin levels & so on, the evidence is there if you look it up.
The sceptics have quoted nothing.

A court hearing.

Judge summing up,
Overwhelming Forensic evidence from the pathologist puts you at the scene , and shows you murdered xyz. I’m sentencing you to 10 years in jail.

partinobody
You haven’t got a peer reviewed academic journal that repeated it, so there’s no evidence (I will accept) that proves I did it.

Judge:
Tough. You are still going down because our forensic evidence is beyond reasonable doubt!! That’s how good it is.

I admit that your posts tend to be verbose, so I may have skimmed over some of the longer ones, but that being said I can't recall you quoting even one legitimate scientific document.

In fact I have continually begged you to do so, but so far nothing but claims. However I'm willing to keep giving you the opportunity to change my mind. So if you could give us a link to a legitimate scientific article that corroborates your posts it would go a long way to lending your posts a modicum of credibility, because at the moment they don't have any.

Looking forward to your link!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

read the science.

then comment.

The shroud is the most studied artefact in history.

Many books have been produced on it, I have most of the important ones.
The conference papers would fill a small room. See shroud.com.

The overwhelming concensus now is that the daters tested a dyed mediaeval repair whose textile, chemical and physical properties were very different . They also failed to honour the protocols and testing that might have saved them from such a mistake.

Most of the other evidences points at.
- A real crucifixion victim with pre and post mortem pathology unknown (and invisible) in medieval times. It is real blood and serum that forensic matches other cloths, that have provably not been near each other for at least 1500 years. So it is not possibly an artwork.

- The cloth is ancient, and various aspects show it spend a lot of time in Jerusalem. Including mineral dirt from the feet. So that is where it originated

- The crucifixion method was unique that points at one recorded owner. Jesus.

- The only way anyone has come close to reproducting the mark in chemical terms is body centric radiations. eg corona discharge, uv etc.
Rogers also suggested a maillard reaction from theory, but failed to produce experimental evidence to show it would produce a mark with similar properties (which UV and corona have ), he also failed to explain adequately, and certainly did not back up experimentally, why mailard gases would stay so close to the body and not diffuse to allow the photo definition of the image.

That is the overwhelming view of science. Lots of it.

If you disagree , you are not disagreeing with me but the many scientists who have actually researched it! Read their papers and books and challenge them.

I have read the science. You have no science behind your claims. Nor are you willing to learn even the basics of science. None of your claims are correct and what is even worse is that claims about ignoring protocols apply to the person that lied about his samples.

Do you understand that? Private sampling was not allowed and yet the man that you relied upon openly admitted to lie. Why would you trust him? Is it okay to lie for Jesus? When did this become okay in Christianity?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have read the science. You have no science behind your claims. Nor are you willing to learn even the basics of science. None of your claims are correct and what is even worse is that claims about ignoring protocols apply to the person that lied about his samples.

Do you understand that? Private sampling was not allowed and yet the man that you relied upon openly admitted to lie. Why would you trust him? Is it okay to lie for Jesus? When did this become okay in Christianity?

When a study supports his belief, the people involved - regardless of vested interests or dubious ethical records - are honest and upstanding experts of integrity. When a study contradicts his belief, the scientists are cheating clowns and amateurs. But can you guess which of them publish the scientific data for peer and public review?

 

[partinobodycular]

The shroud is the most researched artefact in history.
Enough to fill a small library, with books, papers and the rest.
Shroud.com lists conferehces, proceedings and papers and a myriad of books.

Read it. “ a chemists perspective on the shroud” Rogers.
Or not. Your choice.

Sooooo...no link...why am I not surprised.

Hmmm...enough to fill a small library, but apparently not enough to warrant a linkable article supporting your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When a study supports his belief, the people involved - regardless of vested interests or dubious ethical records - are honest and upstanding experts of integrity. When a study contradicts his belief, the scientists are cheating clowns and amateurs. But can you guess which of them publish the scientific data for peer and public review?

Even before it was dated a member of STURP found evidence that proved it to be a medieval fraud. Walter McCrone who was a very well respected chemist that specialized in microscopy and had analyzed art works in the past to determine if they are real or not found evidence that the image was a painted on:

Claims of Invalid "Shroud" Radiocarbon Date Cut from Whole Cloth | Skeptical Inquirer

"However, Rogers’ assertions to the contrary, both the cotton and the madder have been found elsewhere on the shroud. Both were specifically reported by famed microanalyst Walter McCrone (1996, 85) who was commissioned to examine samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). After McCrone discovered the image was rendered in tempera paint, STURP held him to a secrecy agreement, while statements were made to the press that no evidence of artistry was found. McCrone was then, he says, “drummed out” of the organization [Nickell 1998, 124—125; 2004, 193—194]. As evidence of its pro-authenticity bias, STURP’s leaders served on the executive committee of the Holy Shroud Guild."