- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,006
- 52,622
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Unlike you, I'm not afraid to take on point by point!
The bottomless pit is lined with question marks.
No you won't. You'll abuse them.Enjoy a world without question marks. It is a gift to you from those of us who see virtually nothing but question marks. We will attempt to keep you safe from them.
Is that what you got from the point I made?Ah, more grammar lessons for the grammar school students.
Is that what you got from the point I made?
I guess I gave you too much credit.You were making a point? (<---- look a question mark)
That's because my science is predicated on trade paperbacks written for the general audience consisting of pre-digested simplifications of the science coupled with what clearly sounds like biased point of view from the partisans D
I'm sure mixing the wrong things in the janitor closet can lead to problems. Chloramines and whatnot.
But you seem to be able to see that kind of fraud in others, though, right?
I read many of the Climategate e-mails as well and they were easily twisted and misrepresented by climate denialists.
There are those who doubt it.
With the possible exception of some cinnabar and ochre pigments that are similar to those used in paints which show up in some of the "red" areas of the cloth.
Are you actually incapable of learning? It's two words: a priori. What kind of latin did
That's because my science is predicated on trade paperbacks written for the general audience consisting of pre-digested simplifications of the science coupled with what clearly sounds like biased point of view from the partisans involved.
I'm sure mixing the wrong things in the janitor closet can lead to problems. Chloramines and whatnot.
But you seem to be able to see that kind of fraud in others, though, right?
I read many of the Climategate e-mails as well and they were easily twisted and misrepresented by climate denialists.
There are those who doubt it.
With the possible exception of some cinnabar and ochre pigments that are similar to those used in paints which show up in some of the "red" areas of the cloth.
Are you actually incapable of learning? It's two words: a priori. What kind of latin did you get taught????
Ammonia and bleach from janitors closet!
Another interesting article on the Shroud from 2016 (HERE)
Some interesting highlights (to give an insight into the ACTUAL scientific consensus):
"There have been many reports (too numerous to list here) that questioned various aspects of the dating measurement, but none of these were sufficient to challenge the 14C dating measurement itself."
For something that Mike claims is incontrovertible and debunked it is interesting that legitimate scientists still fail to see the "truth". Perhaps Mike will tell us about their university association as a means of debunking their science as well. (It will help if Mike knows the difference between universities in the US, but I'm sure he'll see one word and extrapolate...let's see!)
The goal of this paper was: "...to characterize more carefully the sample used for 14C dating of the shroud at Arizona for the following reasons: to see if we could confirm that the dated sample is consistent with the rest of the cloth, and to assess the possibility of contaminants that might have affected the 14C age. Our purpose is to describe the textile’s visible properties, for the record, so that there will be no question as to the nature of the sample that was 14C dated."
They take on Rogers' assertion about his fiber analysis:
"...we find no evidence for any coatings or dyeing of the linen. Rogers (2005) suggested that the fibers in his study, which came from the Raes fragments (e.g. Heimberger 2009), were coated with a Madder root dye (e.g. alizarin) and mordant. Linen does not readily accept dye, and any surface “coating” would be loosely adhered. We viewed a textile fragment dyed using traditional methods under UV light, and observed absolutely no similarity in UV fluorescence consistent with such a dye. Rogers (2005) and others assert that the Raes and the “radiocarbon samples” he studied are dyed, in contrast to the main part of the shroud. As stated by Rogers (2005), “No other part of the shroud shows such a coating.”"
Further:
"We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously."
While none of this means that the 14-C dating is ipso facto correct. But it shows that there ARE questions around the various fringe theories used to question the 14-C dates. And it shows that the 14-C dates are still accepted by scientists. Unlike the hyperbole @Mountainmike undertakes which would make you think only nutjobs still believe in the Medieval Date.
Interesting how bias can skew someone's position so much.
Unlike you, I'm not afraid to take on point by point! Let's talk bilirubin in the "blood stains".
HERE's yet another peer reviewed article that I am going to discuss so you can blow it off (because you can't discuss science without someone digesting it for you).
They are testing the blood composition hypotheses. One of the things they note is: "however, as noted by many who have examined the cloth, the bloodstains are more reddish than would be expected for aged blood. "
The researches also noted that in their study: "Bloodstains with a high bilirubin content were not found to maintain a reddish color, regardless of the specific form of bilirubin present."
Here they discuss Adler's hypothesis about bilirubin (I have highlighted the important bits for you):
"A central tenet of Adler’s bilirubin hypothesis is that mixing together methemoglobin plus high levels of bilirubin results in the color red. Methemoglobin is the deoxygenated form of hemoglobin that forms within minutes to hours upon the exposure of fresh blood to air. As blood dries, the iron present in the hemoglobin undergoes a conversion from the Fe2+ form to the Fe3+ form (creating methemoglobin), which cannot efficiently bind oxygen. Oxygen bound to the Fe2+ form of iron is what gives fresh blood its red color. Methemoglobin is formed during the natural aging of bloodstains, but may also be rapidly induced by chemical treatment with NaNO2.20 As shown in Figure 7, NaNO2 treatment effectively oxidized blood to a brownish color (Figure 7), which occurred using either whole blood or hemolysates (Figure 8). Importantly, as Figure 9 demonstrates, when high levels of unconjugated bilirubin are added to hemolysates containing methemoglobin the color remains brown, similar to what is observed in control groups (Figure 9). These results demonstrate that Adler’s prediction of methemoglobin plus high bilirubin in hemolysates yields a red color is not fulfilled."
Interestingly they also note: "Reportedly, Adler used a concentration of bilirubin some 500x above normal levels in the creation of a blood simulacrum to try to achieve a match with Shroud bloodstains for spectroscopic studies."
Hmmm, sounds like he was really amping up the variables to achieve a preferred effect. That's not, in and of itself, evidence of fraud, but rather what someone might do in a first-pass effort to see an effect. I wonder if he ultimately brought the levels down to human levels. At least we know from the present article that those levels would be insufficient to achieve the color.
the Mitochondrial DNA of the pollen spores??? Could you please provide an actual reference for that? I knew a palynologist back in undergrad and it wasn't usually done with DNA. It's a rather different area of study and relies on the morphology of the pollen. But I'd be very interested in learning about the DNA extraction of the pollen you speak of. If you can muster the ability to cite a reference and/or provide a quote that would be much appreciated.
What minerals, specifically? I'm genuinely curious as my degrees are in geology/geochemistry and I spent a great deal of time in mineralogy. Citation, please.
Unlike you, I'm not afraid to take on point by point! Let's talk bilirubin in the "blood stains".
HERE's yet another peer reviewed article that I am going to discuss so you can blow it off (because you can't discuss science without someone digesting it for you).
They are testing the blood composition hypotheses. One of the things they note is: "however, as noted by many who have examined the cloth, the bloodstains are more reddish than would be expected for aged blood. "
The researches also noted that in their study: "Bloodstains with a high bilirubin content were not found to maintain a reddish color, regardless of the specific form of bilirubin present."
Here they discuss Adler's hypothesis about bilirubin (I have highlighted the important bits for you):
"A central tenet of Adler’s bilirubin hypothesis is that mixing together methemoglobin plus high levels of bilirubin results in the color red. Methemoglobin is the deoxygenated form of hemoglobin that forms within minutes to hours upon the exposure of fresh blood to air. As blood dries, the iron present in the hemoglobin undergoes a conversion from the Fe2+ form to the Fe3+ form (creating methemoglobin), which cannot efficiently bind oxygen. Oxygen bound to the Fe2+ form of iron is what gives fresh blood its red color. Methemoglobin is formed during the natural aging of bloodstains, but may also be rapidly induced by chemical treatment with NaNO2.20 As shown in Figure 7, NaNO2 treatment effectively oxidized blood to a brownish color (Figure 7), which occurred using either whole blood or hemolysates (Figure 8). Importantly, as Figure 9 demonstrates, when high levels of unconjugated bilirubin are added to hemolysates containing methemoglobin the color remains brown, similar to what is observed in control groups (Figure 9). These results demonstrate that Adler’s prediction of methemoglobin plus high bilirubin in hemolysates yields a red color is not fulfilled."
Interestingly they also note: "Reportedly, Adler used a concentration of bilirubin some 500x above normal levels in the creation of a blood simulacrum to try to achieve a match with Shroud bloodstains for spectroscopic studies."
Hmmm, sounds like he was really amping up the variables to achieve a preferred effect. That's not, in and of itself, evidence of fraud, but rather what someone might do in a first-pass effort to see an effect. I wonder if he ultimately brought the levels down to human levels. At least we know from the present article that those levels would be insufficient to achieve the color.
the Mitochondrial DNA of the pollen spores??? Could you please provide an actual reference for that? I knew a palynologist back in undergrad and it wasn't usually done with DNA. It's a rather different area of study and relies on the morphology of the pollen. But I'd be very interested in learning about the DNA extraction of the pollen you speak of. If you can muster the ability to cite a reference and/or provide a quote that would be much appreciated.
What minerals, specifically? I'm genuinely curious as my degrees are in geology/geochemistry and I spent a great deal of time in mineralogy. Citation, please.
That's interesting. Because the only people who are 100% sure of their claims are usually religious people. It is a blessing to have no doubts. It is a blessing to never question, to have stuff predigested and spoon fed without question, to drink deeply the draught and close one's eyes.
Alas, some of us are wired differently and the questions are always there. It's those questions which provided you with the world you enjoy living in today. The fact that you ever saw anyplace further away from your home than you could walk in a day, the fact that you are typing on a computer, the fact that you are living nearly 2X longer than people did at the time when ULTIMATE PERFECTED TRUTH was handed down to them.
Enjoy a world without question marks. It is a gift to you from those of us who see virtually nothing but question marks. We will attempt to keep you safe from them.
If you had not wasted so much of my time in vexatious attacks on my background and qualifications , and asked meaningful questions many posts ago I might have dug it up .
So I will give a clue to one of your questions.
It was a specific Travertine aragonite.
Sturp found it
The rest you can find yourself.
Occam’s razor says the shroud is real.
Meanwhile the same Kelly Kearse pays tribute to heller and Adler when heller passed on
Adler was more than a coworker. He was one of the best porphyrin chemists around
. Its real blood.
A real crucifixion, get over it.
All the smokescreens in the world won’t change that.
The sample includes cotton
ove it! You don't know the difference between University of Arizona and Arizona State University! LOL. If you knew ANYTHING about universities in the US you'd know that they are VERY DIFFERENT institutions. But you can be forgiven for your ignorance of how universities in the US are organized. But since you can't construct an argument without it being larded with logic fallacies another true ad hominem is nothing for you.
It's hilarious. I KNEW you didn't know the difference. LOL.
Take it from someone who has lived in the US his entire life and been through more than his fair share of state schools...as per usual you don't know what you're talking about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?