Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[Mountainmike]

You are reading sceptic nonsense from wiki, not science.

Mcrone was an idiot that let his faith get in the way of science, his conclusions destroyed by real chemists Adler and Rogers separately. Neither of whom were Christians.

It is fascinating how people who profess to care about science, don’t know any of it before comment on things they known nothing about,

The image is NOT paint or an artwork.
Dozens of real scientists confirm it is dehydration / oxidation of cellulose.
It is also micro meters deep. So cannot be a paint or even heat.

Your very Last chance.

Study the science not sceptic wishful thinking , or I will stop conversing.
I want a conversation about science, not sceptic a priori beliefs.

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."

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

Shroud.com.

thousands of links.

Rogers thermochimica acta article is there, but the book is far more wide ranging, with ten times the detail.

It will take you a year to study it to get a fair picture. for most of us much longer than that.

if you want a précis of why the date was in error,
Go to 2019 conferences.
Marino’s talk.
A video of an hour.
Points at all the underlying key factors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are reading sceptic nonsense from wiki, not science.

Mcrone was an idiot that let his faith get in the way of science, his conclusions destroyed by real chemists Adler and Rogers separately. Neither of whom were Christians.

It is fascinating how people who profess to care about science, don’t know any of it before comment on things they known nothing about,

The image is NOT paint or an artwork.
Dozens of real scientists confirm it is dehydration / oxidation of cellulose.
It is also micro meters deep. So cannot be a paint or even heat.

Your very Last chance.

Study the science not sceptic wishful thinking , or I will stop conversing.
I want a conversation about science, not sceptic a priori beliefs.

No, I am reading reliable sources. All you have is character assassination. You cannot deal with the fact that the members of the team that analyzed the shroud and carefully chose which samples to date did not find any sign of "magical reweaving". By the way, the cloth alone refutes the story. The herring bone fabric was not even used for shrouds. And there is no confirmation at all of the magical reweaving claim. The supposed samples that were tested later could not have been obtained honestly.

Do you realize that when one promises not to take private samples and then later on claims to have broken that vow that person has lost all credibility? You are back to claiming that it is okay to lie for Jesus.

And the scientist that had the greatest authority in determining whether it was paint or not was the one that found that it was painted.


Do you have any valid sources?

 

[partinobodycular]

Shroud.com.

Yes, I went there...talk about a rabbit hole. It's easy to see how someone might be persuaded that there's credible articles there. The overwhelming volume makes it difficult to parse through however, but one thing becomes abundantly clear, this isn't an impartial database.

It will take you a year to study it to get a fair picture. for most of us much longer than that.

And therein lies your problem. I'm not spending a year studying a source when it only takes me five minutes to ascertain that that source is more than likely biased.

So what do I do instead? I look for credible articles, in credible journals and publications. And speculative articles aside, (on both sides) the overwhelming evidence says that the shroud isn't authentic.

Here's problem number two. The only person who's going to spend a year studying this issue is one who's already predisposed to believing it, and a year of studying is only going to make that predisposition worse. That is unfortunately how biases work. A skeptical person is simply going to continue until they run into the first dubious claim and then stop.

So at some point if you say...here read this book, or watch this hour long video, I'm simply going to go by previous experience, and say no thank you.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yes, I went there...talk about a rabbit hole. It's easy to see how someone might be persuaded that there's credible articles there. The overwhelming volume makes it difficult to parse through however, but one thing becomes abundantly clear, this isn't an impartial database.


And therein lies your problem. I'm not spending a year studying a source when it only takes me five minutes to ascertain that that source is more than likely biased.

So what do I do instead? I look for credible articles, in credible journals and publications. And speculative articles aside, (on both sides) the overwhelming evidence says that the shroud isn't authentic.

Here's problem number two. The only person who's going to spend a year studying this issue is one who's already predisposed to believing it, and a year of studying is only going to make that predisposition worse. That is unfortunately how biases work. A skeptical person is simply going to continue until they run into the first dubious claim and then stop.

So at some point if you say...here read this book, or watch this hour long video, I'm simply going to go by previous experience, and say no thank you.

Shroud.com is THE repository for shroud science.
It hosts all views even those that oppose.
I’ve given you places to start.

You prefer to make sweeping generalisations never studying detail.

If you ever decide to study it, let’s talk. Till then you don’t know enough to comment. The overwhelming view is the dating was an error. The science makes it obvious why.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sad.
Until you study it you will never know.

Mcrone was roundly dismissed by Adler - a porphyrin chemist who explained to mcrone why he got the results he did: also that his conclusions were provably wrong , Adler also proves the red marks are blood and that the sepia marks are thin dehydration. There is no correlation between what the density of what McCrone said made the marks and the density of the marks,

mcrone was consistent. Following his success at wrongly dating the Vinland map with bad science and , he did the same for the shroud.

You are fighting battles that were lost by sceptics 20 years ago. Science has moved on. The test Sample had nothing in common with the shroud body which was linen with no vanillin. Only wiki readers are still lost in your timewarp.

No, I am reading reliable sources. All you have is character assassination. You cannot deal with the fact that the members of the team that analyzed the shroud and carefully chose which samples to date did not find any sign of "magical reweaving". By the way, the cloth alone refutes the story. The herring bone fabric was not even used for shrouds. And there is no confirmation at all of the magical reweaving claim. The supposed samples that were tested later could not have been obtained honestly.

Do you realize that when one promises not to take private samples and then later on claims to have broken that vow that person has lost all credibility? You are back to claiming that it is okay to lie for Jesus.

And the scientist that had the greatest authority in determining whether it was paint or not was the one that found that it was painted.


Do you have any valid sources?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shroud.com is THE repository for shroud science.
It hosts all views even those that oppose.
I’ve given you places to start.

You prefer to make sweeping generalisations never studying detail.

If you ever decide to study it, let’s talk. Till then you don’t know enough to comment. The overwhelming view is the dating was an error. The science makes it obvious why.

No, it is not a scientific source. If one does not go along with the party line one's work is not allowed there. It is simply a rah rah site for the shroud.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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."

Unfortunately, while it casts more doubt on the STURP project, this is yet another case of 'he says, they say' with no current way to verify or falsify it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sad.
Until you study it you will never know.

But I have studied it. You have not. You refuse to even learn how we know that your beliefs are wrong. I think that you may be projecting.

Back to the shroud.com, they are not a scientific site for the same reason that creationist sites are not scientific. One never gets to assume the results one wants and claim to be scientific. If one has to swear that a belief is true to publish at a site it is not scientific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately, while it casts more doubt on the STURP project, this is yet another case of 'he says, they say' with no current way to verify or falsify it.

I know, but if one goes by the areas of expertise of one's sources it is a loss for the STURP supporters.

For me the fact that those claiming the shroud is true have to rely on a scientist that promised to do no private sampling and then did is good enough to make his work worthless. One thing that all of the daters agreed to was that all sampling would have to be done as a group so that there would be no questions of bias about them. Before the tests came in they all agreed on where to sample. That it was a site that was original cloth etc.. It was only when the results proved the claim of the shroud being a fraud that some went back on their word.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know, but if one goes by the areas of expertise of one's sources it is a loss for the STURP supporters.

For me the fact that those claiming the shroud is true have to rely on a scientist that promised to do no private sampling and then did is good enough to make his work worthless. One thing that all of the daters agreed to was that all sampling would have to be done as a group so that there would be no questions of bias about them. Before the tests came in they all agreed on where to sample. That it was a site that was original cloth etc.. It was only when the results proved the claim of the shroud being a fraud that some went back on their word.

Yes; it's interesting that none of the team had expertise in medieval art, archaeology, or textiles, and it was led by members of the Holy Shroud Guild, whose website seems to be dedicated to marketing and promoting shroud paraphernalia...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes; it's interesting that none of the team had expertise in medieval art, archaeology, or textiles, and it was led by members of the Holy Shroud Guild, whose website seems to be dedicated to marketing and promoting shroud paraphernalia...

It is very telling that McCrone's work on the shroud when a member of STURP is missing from their "scientific papers". Since he was a leader in his field his papers should be easy to find. One has to ask why they are missing:

Shroud of Turin Website Library

A scientific site does not eliminate papers that disagree with them.

 

[Zoii]

@Mountainmike At the very least you should be congratulated for generating an engaging and long-running thread.

And while I don't support your contentions, I do think the most interesting and powerful evidence to support something ethereal or spiritual, is that elements from the earth have coalesced to suddenly have self-actualisation. The more I think on how a bag of potassium, sodium and carbon can suddenly recognize "self" the more I am open to a spiritual view of life (and death).

 

[Mountainmike]

Are you all incapable of even basic research?

You all assume there is a slam dunk against the authenticity and look on wiki to find it. I’ve warned against that before.

You are all wrong. The date is totally discredited. Life has moved on. Even the linen of the test sample is not the same as the shroud body, either vanillin or structure. The rc test proven dud.

But since you ask: The site lists pretty much every wacko to pronounce on the shroud, and all who asked for papers to be listed.

it lists mcrones book. It lists the farcical Nickell who thinks a bad pencil rubbing imitates chemistry. Or anything that doesn’t look like blood must be a pious fraud. Not. It lists Harry Gove dating organiser who from the copious emails sent in marionos book shows he wasn’t interested in dating the shroud, he was interested in debunking it.


More importantly it lists the repeated demolition of mccrones argument by real chemists. Who were not Christian.

Adler, Heller , Rogers ( and many later ) ldemolish mccrone arguments. Adler sets him straight on basic chemistry!
Rogers berates mccrone for basic scientific errors in sample handling.

since you seem fixate on Mccrone because of confirmation bias perhaps you should consider his other claim to fame is MISDATING the Vinland map.

Will not one of you read the science?

Let’s make it easy for you.

This video of Adler describes the chemistry of the shroud and puts mcrone right on errors of science. ( who was there and had presented)

none of you will watch it of course…
Adlers papers can be got as “ the orphaned manuscript”
Rogers book is the best introduction. Adler goes even deeper.
Adler was not a Christian.

He was an an objective scientists.

It is very telling that McCrone's work on the shroud when a member of STURP is missing from their "scientific papers". Since he was a leader in his field his papers should be easy to find. One has to ask why they are missing:

Shroud of Turin Website Library

A scientific site does not eliminate papers that disagree with them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you all incapable of even basic research?

You all assume there is a slam dunk against the authenticity and look on wiki to find it. I’ve warned against that before.

You are all wrong. The date is totally discredited. Life has moved on. Even the linen of the test sample is not the same as the shroud body, either vanillin or structure. The rc test proven dud.

But since you ask: The site lists pretty much every wacko to pronounce on the shroud, and all who asked for papers to be listed.

it lists mcrones book. It lists the farcical Nickell who thinks a bad pencil rubbing imitates chemistry. Or anything that doesn’t look like blood must be a pious fraud. Not. It lists Harry Gove dating organiser who from the copious emails sent in marionos book shows he wasn’t interested in dating the shroud, he was interested in debunking it.


More importantly it lists the repeated demolition of mccrones argument by real chemists. Who were not Christian.

Adler, Heller , Rogers ( and many later ) ldemolish mccrone arguments. Adler sets him straight on basic chemistry!
Rogers berates mccrone for basic scientific errors in sample handling.

since you seem fixate on Mccrone because of confirmation bias perhaps you should consider his other claim to fame is MISDATING the Vinland map.

Will not one of you read the science?

Let’s make it easy for you.

This video of Adler describes the chemistry of the shroud and puts mcrone right on errors of science. ( who was there and had presented)

none of you will watch it of course…
Adlers papers can be got as “ the orphaned manuscript”
Rogers book is the best introduction. Adler goes even deeper.
Adler was not a Christian.

He was an an objective scientists.

I did the research. There were no complaints against carbon dating that held up to scrutiny.

You are the one that cannot find adequate or even any support for your claims. By the way, YouTube videos do not cut it. They can be instructive, if you can support your claims which you cannot do, but they are jot evidence on their own.

Also I explained why STURP failed as a scientific organization. You had no proper response to that. McCrone was a member that wrote how the shroud was refuted when he belonged to STURP. Why aren't those publications in their list? In baseball terms you are batting .000 right now.

 

[Mountainmike]

No you haven’t.

Adler, heller, Rogers and many others bury mcrone.
You have not read a single one.

Their papers are out there in reputable journals and books you will never read.

Take heller, in this that dismisses mcrone.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Chemical Investigation Heller Adler 1981 OCR.pdf

The Adler video ( a conference proceeding - don’t conferences count with you?)
is intreresting in that he gives mcrone who was present a clearly needed science lesson: all the issues are raised in that video. Including Adler explaining to mccrone why his results didn’t mean what he thought they did.

You do realise that the other serious voices that disputed authenticity and age, also disagreed with mcrone too? The dialogue of mcrone with others is noted in shroud magazines : mcrones comments and responses, which you would find if you ever looked. I won’t hold my breath. It’s fascinating in those dialogues mcrone refers readers to his book. You know… the one they list on shroud.com!

Adler, heller, Rogers and many others since have determined the blood as blood ( and serum) .The mark a thin layer dehydration/ oxidation. All discount it as any form of artwork or paint.


The RC sample was determined as having little in common, chemistry, structure, density or chemistry with the rest of the shroud. The date was ok for a repair. The daters even fiddled that, as an FOI on their logbooks show! So as the only archeologist involved - meacham - said before the dating, with textiles it would only ever be indicative not definitive , and only then if they characterised it chemically first. Meacham was also angry they ignored the agreed sampling protocol.

I’m writing this for other rwaders who might be interested. I’ve given up that you might consider science instead of your belief. I will no longer respond to you.

I did the research. There were no complaints against carbon dating that held up to scrutiny.

You are the one that cannot find adequate or even any support for your claims. By the way, YouTube videos do not cut it. They can be instructive, if you can support your claims which you cannot do, but they are jot evidence on their own.

Also I explained why STURP failed as a scientific organization. You had no proper response to that. McCrone was a member that wrote how the shroud was refuted when he belonged to STURP. Why aren't those publications in their list? In baseball terms you are batting .000 right now.

 

[Mountainmike]

@Mountainmike At the very least you should be congratulated for generating an engaging and long-running thread.

And while I don't support your contentions, I do think the most interesting and powerful evidence to support something ethereal or spiritual, is that elements from the earth have coalesced to suddenly have self-actualisation. The more I think on how a bag of potassium, sodium and carbon can suddenly recognize "self" the more I am open to a spiritual view of life (and death).

Zoii - the consciousness aspect and sense of self is also fascinating.
Whilst they are normally only anecdotal , some out of body consciousness incidents are hard to explain as invention, because of the uniqueness of what they saw.
But A single validated out of body experience debunks consciousness as a chemical process. Which is why they interest me. If it interests you I will give an example, but clearly this is not laboratory stuff.

Also states of brain activity, some locutions occur in delta wave patterns. That’s supposed to be impossible according to neurologists.

Some telepathic phenomena also question the idea of limitation of consciousness to be just an internal chemical process.

but really. If the journey interests you , check out some physical phenomena: hard to discount, impossible to explain.

As a narrative read Mike willesees book “ a sceptics search” is fascinating, because he was a world famous investigative journalist, who used to take great pleasure in debunking the supernatural. Until ultimately scientific evidence persuaded even him. The journey from sceptic to believer is fascinating. As are the writings of tesoriero , the lawyer who he joined forces with.

The difference between me and the sceptics on this thread, is I’m happy to be persuaded by scientific arguments: things I’ve researched for at least 30 years. I was reading about the shroud even before sturp. Some of those who argue with me have yet to read a single article on it!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Zoii - the consciousness aspect and sense of self is also fascinating.
Whilst they are normally only anecdotal , some out of body consciousness incidents are hard to explain as invention, because of the uniqueness of what they saw.
But A single validated out of body experience debunks consciousness as a chemical process. Which is why they interest me. If it interests you I will give an example, but clearly this is not laboratory stuff.

The two major scientific studies on this (AWARE I and AWARE II) have produced a number of experiential reports, no compelling evidence of actual OBEs, and good evidence that the experiential reports were linked to depressed cerebral oxygen levels. There's been talk of an AWARE III study, but I suspect Dr Parnia may be coming to terms with the idea that these experiences are a consequence of changes in brain physiology rather than evidence of physically real escapades of consciousness/mind/soul/whatever outside the body.

We already knew that 'clinical death', with its various definitions, is not actual death (irreversible cessation of life).

Results from neuroscience suggest that we should expect similar experiences when the relevant brain structures are functioning abnormally, and not only can OBE sensations be stimulated by drugs or direct stimulation affecting those brain areas, but it is not difficult to produce such sensations just using AR headsets (a kind of whole-body rubber-hand illusion), i.e. visual stimuli alone can 'fool' the brain into the sensation of being outside bodily confines or being in a different body. Our sense of embodiment is less stable than had been thought.

 

[Mountainmike]

The point I make is : what evidence would point consciousness as other than a chemical process, based on learned experience of the environment?

answer:
Out of body is one but specifically in the context of verifiable Special knowledge that cannot have been learned of a remote place ,and or time or and or place. A special case is telepathy. No amount of hypoxia gives special knowledge. Sometimes with abnormal brain patterns

Unlike the shroud - it’s not a subject I’ve spent much time on.

I’ve referred a couple of extraordinary cases in the past.

The two major scientific studies on this (AWARE I and AWARE II) have produced a number of experiential reports, no compelling evidence of actual OBEs, and good evidence that the experiential reports were linked to depressed cerebral oxygen levels. There's been talk of an AWARE III study, but I suspect Dr Parnia may be coming to terms with the idea that these experiences are a consequence of changes in brain physiology rather than evidence of physically real escapades of consciousness/mind/soul/whatever outside the body.

Results from neuroscience suggest that we should expect similar experiences when the relevant brain structures are functioning abnormally, and not only can OBE sensations be stimulated by drugs or direct stimulation affecting those brain areas, but it is not difficult to produce such sensations just using AR headsets (a kind of whole-body rubber-hand illusion), i.e. visual stimuli alone can 'fool' the brain into the sensation of being outside bodily confines or being in a different body. Our sense of embodiment is less stable than had been thought.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The point I make is : what evidence would point at other than consciousness as other than a chemical process, based on learned experience of the environment?

answer:
Out of body is one but specifically in the context of verifiable Special knowledge that cannot have been learned of a remote place ,and or time or and or place. A special case is telepathy. No amount of hypoxia gives special knowledge. Sometimes with abnormal brain patterns

Unlike the shroud - it’s not a subject I’ve spent much time on.

I’ve referred a couple of extraordinary cases in the past.

AFAIAA, there have been no such cases that have been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, and no well-controlled scientific experiments or replications demonstrating such knowledge. Such a demonstration would have physicists queueing up to replicate it and the military & commercial organizations would invest fortunes. Both US and UK military have investigated remote viewing at some length and both have dropped it as unreliable even without the full blinding of better-controlled studies.

But if you have links to published peer-reviewed research, preferably with independent replications, that demonstrate your claim of verifiable 'special knowledge' beyond reasonable doubt, post them up - I'd like to see them.