Is science at odds with philosophy?

Estrid said:

Examples of inexplicable event verified to have occurred?

Click to expand...

Ask @MountainMike

There are plenty of verified events for which we don't yet have explanations, but I can't think of any off-hand that are not, in principle, explicable under the current framework.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

There are plenty of verified events for which we don't yet have explanations,

Click to expand...

This is why I claim that finding rabbits int the Precambrian wouldn't falsify evolution.

Evolution is an unfalsifiable doctrine, and therefore unscientific.

I can only say the following.

1/ surely you agree with: that data does not get modified from lab book to report by accident, not when an official is there to make sure all was done to the book

2/ is a statistical fact that the real data was heterogenous (not homogenous as it was presented to the world) and that invalidates the test outcome which is nul. The supposed medieaval dating didnt happen in proper metrology terms. The dates provided a question, not an answer.

3/ There is an entire book of correspondence which shows the attitude of daters . But you dont do books. Marinos book on RC dating ( and by the way of all of them, that is not the one I would pick first:
- it is just 10 years correspondence between parties .
There are many aspects of "bad faith" shown, but one of them was the allegations made against the impartiality of "sturp" in order to exclude them all. But the net result of all that was the daters were then blind about all previous work and blind about the chemical construction of the shroud.
People accuse me of doubting the integrity of all scientists! I dont! Mistakes are made. But this lot were an exception, some of the very few with an attitude problem. They did not set out to date the shroud, they set out to popularise AMS. They all assumed it was a mediaeval fake. Indeed they threw everyone off the team who did not think it was a fake!. That is not good faith. Or impartiality. So I actually think they assumed the shroud was homogeneous , and then disaster! the figures did not add up... so they then tried to cover up problems they could not identify in their AMS by fudging homogeneity. It is actually sad, because AMS was fine, they proved that point, but the date gradient was real the sample inhomogeneous and that is fascinating science.

IF NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS:
4/ If the daters had allowed sturp into the conversation , they could have shown the indisputable photos of that area of the shroud taken in 1978, which on - UV fluorescence - backlight and low energy XRAY imaging ALL show THAT VERY AREA(including the Raes sample ) as an anomolous band. If only the daters had studied the shroud ( or allowed STURP into the room) ,or if they had followed protocol and characterised samples they would have realised ( as Rogers later proved), dating there was useless. It was different stuff. It was part cotton, and even the linen was different.

It is 4/ that I hope to draw everyones attention to.

I despair of those who only look at the dating papers, without looking at the physiochemistry of what was being dated. A lot was known about the shroud by then, and just ignored. But you cannot talk about dating without studying the shroud itself.If people saw the dark band in the photos (from which the sample was taken) they would know (and the daters should have known) it was simply anomalous not representative

Even Michael Tite now accepts it was not "faked up to flog it" to quote Halls of oxford. Tite now accepts it is the shroud of a crucified man!! it took him 20 years to get to where the rest of us are. The question then is who and when.

I susp ct this is going no further. anyone wanting to look at the shroud further, I suggest look at those photos to see the anomaly and then the sudarium with far older provenance and a large forensic correspondence.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Without an explanation for the claimed data modifications, it seems presumptuous to assume dishonesty. I'm prepared to read the correspondence you mention, if you have a link or reference to it.

As before, without seeing the original documents, there's no reason to change my view. The documents I have seen don't support the claims you've made for them, and some of the people involved have not been the independent, upstanding, and unbiased individuals you implied.

Click to expand...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Human observation - perception, memory, recall, etc. - is notoriously and demonstrably unreliable beyond providing pointers to phenomena for investigation, and experience tells us that deception is also a distinct possibility

Click to expand...

Whilst that is true, it does not of itself invalidate phenomena evidenced only by documentation of experience.

It certainly makes it far harder and even impossible to validate , with a scientific process that in essence is structured around things which can be repeated or naturally repeat.

So what then? It is a particular problem for understanding consciousness which is in essence defined by the fact we all experience the world around us, and we also rationalise that experience.

AV1611VET said:

This is why I claim that finding rabbits int the Precambrian wouldn't falsify evolution.

Click to expand...

It would come very close.

Evolution is an unfalsifiable doctrine, and therefore unscientific.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Without an explanation for the claimed data modifications, it seems presumptuous to assume dishonesty.

Click to expand...

And I think that is what we see in the literature even up to the present day. There are a lot of articles that discuss the possible issues with the 14-C dating which I have cited here on several occasions, but none of them seem to hold the contention that there is anything "dishonest" about the data.

If fraud had been proven it would be part of the record in the citations noted. Since it is not yet proven one must defer to the less serious accusation of simple "disagreement" or "possible error", not a crime.

I'm prepared to read the correspondence you mention, if you have a link or reference to it.

Click to expand...

It sounds like it is in one of the popular press books (eg not peer reviewed) that outlines correspondences. I always get the same feeling I got from the Climategate e-mails which were leveraged by denialists to call into question the science. Most of the time it was misrepresentation of the correspondences. I do not know about these correspondences in regards to the Shroud, but certainly nothing that has risen to the level of the peer reviewed science community.

The documents I have seen don't support the claims you've made for them, and some of the people involved have not been the independent, upstanding, and unbiased individuals you implied.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Reading more recent articles none of them characterize the science as @Mountainmike characterizes it ("debunked" and "fraud" and "fiddling"). Yes, they point out the possible issues with the date, but they do not go so far as to accuse wrongdoing by the scientists.

Opdrey said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

AV1611VET said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

You simply decreed that evolution is "unfalsifiable" because of a story you made up about how a rabbit found in the Pre-Cambrian wouldn't falsify it. Of course you do not know that it wouldn't and in fact, if it were found to be legitimate it would set evolution back. It wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution (because we see evolution happening all day every day....ie "change over time") but it would certainly decimate our understanding of how life developed.

Of course your hypothetical will likely never occur because evolution is founded on a variety of methods (molecular biology as well as fossil record). But if it did it would be an earthquake.

Opdrey said:

You simply decreed that evolution is "unfalsifiable" because of a story you made up about how a rabbit found in the Pre-Cambrian wouldn't falsify it.

Click to expand...

Wow.

After telling me I made that Rabbit In the Precambrian story up to show it wouldn't falsify evolution, you go on to tell me it wouldn't falsify evolution.

Solid aurum.

And FYI, that "story I made up" was shown me here LONG before you ever heard of this site.

We will have to beg to differ.
I have never heard of any example of a paper where raw data neither matched the published data nor the conclusion drawn from it. Mistakes can happen, but a mistake in multiple numbers is hard to believe that fundamentally changes the outcome.

Homogeneity was everything in order to declare the test valid. In this case Michael Tites role was to ensure it was all done by the book, so he will have seen both the data , and the paper and his JOB was noticing discrepancies in procedure or outcome.

The data handling was considered so important that there was also a prior intention to use an Italian metrology laboratory to witness the tests and confirm statistical validity, which like most of the protocols decided beforehand, that was quietly dropped. In that case the lab demanded it had to be present at tests if it was to put its credibility on the line. They were not permitted to do it.

One of the worst features of the shenanigans in the two years leading up to the test, was the stated determination of Harry Gove in particular ( who was de facto leader of the group of daters) to exclude all Of the STURP scientists , on the basis they believed the shroud was real.

A by product of that removal was the daters then became blind. There was nobody left with any knowledge of the physio chemistry of the cloth. The lack of knowledge of the cloth, and the refusal to characterise it was then what led to the debacle.

The reason I urge everyone to study STURP and the cloth first , before even look at the dating is to understand the composition of it, and what was previously done. It matters.

That area is part of a very dark band on the backlit photograph and is also different in both low energy X-RAY image , and also UV fluorescence. Those alone are enough to declare a red flag against it. It is clearly different stuff, even superficially.

Rogers then confirmed that the adjacent Raes sample actually contains cotton as part of the structure , ( and it shares warp or weft with the sample) where the rest of the shroud has only trace amounts of cotton. The linen is also different as is presence of dye. An actual spliced thread was found, coloured at only one end. The linen had different structure.

There is too much tendency of those interested in the shroud to examine only the dating papers and stats as though it were only a number crunching problem.

It is far more fundamental. That area is different in many regards, and that is why the dates differ. Sadly the daters did not follow protocol and chemically characterise samples as meacham had urged.

Opdrey said:

And I think that is what we see in the literature even up to the present day. There are a lot of articles that discuss the possible issues with the 14-C dating which I have cited here on several occasions, but none of them seem to hold the contention that there is anything "dishonest" about the data.

If fraud had been proven it would be part of the record in the citations noted. Since it is not yet proven one must defer to the less serious accusation of simple "disagreement" or "possible error", not a crime.



It sounds like it is in one of the popular press books (eg not peer reviewed) that outlines correspondences. I always get the same feeling I got from the Climategate e-mails which were leveraged by denialists to call into question the science. Most of the time it was misrepresentation of the correspondences. I do not know about these correspondences in regards to the Shroud, but certainly nothing that has risen to the level of the peer reviewed science community.



Indeed. Reading more recent articles none of them characterize the science as @Mountainmike characterizes it ("debunked" and "fraud" and "fiddling"). Yes, they point out the possible issues with the date, but they do not go so far as to accuse wrongdoing by the scientists.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

2/ is a statistical fact that the real data was heterogenous (not homogenous as it was presented to the world) and that invalidates the test outcome which is nul. The supposed medieaval dating didnt happen in proper metrology terms. The dates provided a question, not an answer.

Click to expand...

An actual paper from the Journal of Archeological Science: Reports discusses this very thing.

Here's the citation:
Bryan Walsh, Larry Schwalbe, An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin,Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, V29, 2020, Redirecting.
(An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - ScienceDirect)

The article suggests that the labs failed to undertake the proper tests for homogeneity. I must note, however that the authors state clearly that "...we do not have a description of the locations of the subsamples cut from each sample, we use the location of the center of each sample site as a proxy for each subsample’s location. This results in more than one date at each location and may impact the precision of the statistical results derived. " So the graph in Figure 3 is probably not as "clean" as this. One assumes that within each sample, the subsample actual distance from the edge will probably vary somewhat. The bit highlighted in red is probably of some significance.


The R^2 for this regression is 0.3975. That is not great by any stretch of the imagination. It effectively says that "distance from the edge" accounts for about 40% of the variability of the data. 60% is unaccounted for and we are assuming the rubrick of slamming all the subsamples into the same space isn't introducing more error. (Even when the authors utilized the full Tucosn 8 point data set the R^2 got worse)

The F-test on the regression was significant at p = 0.0279 so at least it's reasonable to say that this graph (including the "fix" of putting all subsamples at the same location) is showing a likely real trend.

A trend, that it might be noted, is still well within the Medieval age.

The authors propose two possible hypotheses to explain this trend:

1. Differences in sample processing by site
2. Some unknown isotopic difference by location

The problem is in no small way due to the very limited sample the researchers were allowed to work with. Approximately 20mmX88mm out a shroud that is 1000mmx4000mm is size. So sampling 0.04% of the total area of the Shroud and limited to only ONE section of the Shroud is going to yield some issues in and of itself.

And apparently a shift of only 88 radiocarbon years in one of the data sets would have yielded an homogenous data set. And the Oxford lab used a slightly different cleaning method (using petroleum ether) which the others did not use. That's interesting.

Again, it is noteworthy that these dates, all of them are easily within the Medieval range. If the difference is from processing that's sub-optimal but there's not a huge signal here that something systemic is rendering this a complete joke of a date.

But, again, no one here is defending the date as perfect. It clearly has issues of one form or another. But it is not a slamdunk indicator of something that is clearly horrifically wrong.

AV1611VET said:

Wow.

After telling me I made that Rabbit In the Precambrian story up to show it wouldn't falsify evolution, you go on to tell me it wouldn't falsify evolution.

Solid aurum.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you understood the point so I will make it again:

Evolution itself doesn't say rabbits couldn't be in the Pre-Cambrian. All evolution says is "life forms change over time". Which manifestly is true. We observe it all the time.

The impact of finding a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian would be one of trying to figure out why no other vertebrates ever showed up in the Pre-cambrian. It would NOT in any way in and of itself call into question the MANY other evidences for evolution. It WOULD call into question our knowledge of the fossil record and that is a big part of (but not the ONLY) evidence for evolution.

And FYI, that "story I made up" was shown me here LONG before you ever heard of this site.

Click to expand...

And it's just a made up idea. No one has found anything even remotely like that in the pre-cambrian.

It's just a made-up idea and it doesn't completely falsify evolution. It would call into question one piece of evidence for evolution.

Hope I cleared that up for you.

Mountainmike said:

We will have to beg to differ.

Click to expand...

You are free to differ on that point, but of course you cannot support it with actual literature citations. I have done so. I have noted the absolute absence of suggestions of "fraud" even in very recent peer reviewed articles from legitimate resources.

You are free to have the opinion you have, but you cannot support it.

The reason I urge everyone to study STURP and the cloth first , before even look at the dating is to understand the composition of it, and what was previously done. It matters.

Click to expand...

That's precisely why I go with peer reviewed publications. They clearly outline the process and the dating and the technical details.

And I have more than done my job by providing citations and discussing them in technical detail.

Rogers then confirmed that the adjacent Raes sample actually contains cotton as part of the structure

Click to expand...

Again, one of the citations I discussed at length actually mentions the cotton material. It is to be noted that cotton could easily have come in contact with the relic over the course of it's nearly 1400 years of storage in an uncontrolled environment of a church in Italy.

There is too much tendency of those interested in the shroud to examine only the dating papers and stats as though it were only a number crunching problem.

Click to expand...

Numbers are the lingua franca of science.

It is far more fundamental. That area is different in many regards, and that is why the dates differ.

Click to expand...

The article by Walsh and Schwalbe (2020) that I discussed in Post#1011 attempts to explain the inhomogeneity. One cannot simply decree that they know why that exists since the actual scientists don't know why it exists with perfect knowledge.

You are treating it only as a stats problem as are they.

Examine even the 1978 photos in transmission, UV and X-RAY and the sample is part of a different band.

What Rogers found, ie cotton, different linen, dye, spliced threads , accounts both for why that band looks different, and why there is a progression of dates, presumably a progressive repair. After all the handling it will have been frayed. There is a lot of repair on the cloth.

The daters were urged 1/ to take multiple areas, 2/ to chemically characterise samples before test them, 3/ to allow STURP to be present ( which would have allowed them to go back to analysis photos). All were ignored.

Opdrey said:

An actual paper from the Journal of Archeological Science: Reports discusses this very thing.

Here's the citation:
Bryan Walsh, Larry Schwalbe, An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin,Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, V29, 2020, Redirecting.
(An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - ScienceDirect)

The article suggests that the labs failed to undertake the proper tests for homogeneity. I must note, however that the authors state clearly that "...we do not have a description of the locations of the subsamples cut from each sample, we use the location of the center of each sample site as a proxy for each subsample’s location. This results in more than one date at each location and may impact the precision of the statistical results derived. " So the graph in Figure 3 is probably not as "clean" as this. One assumes that within each sample, the subsample actual distance from the edge will probably vary somewhat. The bit highlighted in red is probably of some significance.


The R^2 for this regression is 0.3975. That is not great by any stretch of the imagination. It effectively says that "distance from the edge" accounts for about 40% of the variability of the data. 60% is unaccounted for and we are assuming the rubrick of slamming all the subsamples into the same space isn't introducing more error. (Even when the authors utilized the full Tucosn 8 point data set the R^2 got worse)

The F-test on the regression was significant at p = 0.0279 so at least it's reasonable to say that this graph (including the "fix" of putting all subsamples at the same location) is showing a likely real trend.

A trend, that it might be noted, is still well within the Medieval age.

The authors propose two possible hypotheses to explain this trend:

1. Differences in sample processing by site
2. Some unknown isotopic difference by location

The problem is in no small way due to the very limited sample the researchers were allowed to work with. Approximately 20mmX88mm out a shroud that is 1000mmx4000mm is size. So sampling 0.04% of the total area of the Shroud and limited to only ONE section of the Shroud is going to yield some issues in and of itself.

And apparently a shift of only 88 radiocarbon years in one of the data sets would have yielded an homogenous data set. And the Oxford lab used a slightly different cleaning method (using petroleum ether) which the others did not use. That's interesting.

Again, it is noteworthy that these dates, all of them are easily within the Medieval range. If the difference is from processing that's sub-optimal but there's not a huge signal here that something systemic is rendering this a complete joke of a date.

But, again, no one here is defending the date as perfect. It clearly has issues of one form or another. But it is not a slamdunk indicator of something that is clearly horrifically wrong.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

You are treating it only as a stats problem as are they.

Click to expand...

That's because the statistics is integral to the conversation. You brought up the topic of homogeneity and that comes out of the statistical analyses.

I am quite familiar with how creationists and climate change denialists treat statistics (only valuable when it confirms their position and to be completely ignored when it doesn't) but we can't decouple statistics from this.

In fact, taking it out of the realm of religion and "belief" and into the realm of raw numbers eliminates a huge possibility to simply wish the right values into existence.

What Rogers found, ie cotton,

Click to expand...

I have to keep reminding you that this was already discussed in another paper I cited.

different linen, dye, spliced threads

Click to expand...

Pretty much everything I've read indicates that there was no obvious evidence of a "repair" in that section. Is this information that is only available in a popular press paperback?

, accounts both for why that band looks different, and why there is a progression of dates,

Click to expand...

And, again, we find your disagreeing with peer reviewed science and without anything more than a vague suggestion of you read it somewhere in a book you bought. That is insufficient.

presumably a progressive repair.

Click to expand...

A repair that took about 80 years to complete and went from the outside to the inside of the cloth? That's imaginative.

Opdrey said:

Hope I cleared that up for you.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd be willing to tell me what would falsify the theory of evolution?

Opdrey said:

That's precisely why I go with peer reviewed publications. They clearly outline the process and the dating and the technical details.
.

Click to expand...

I have urged you in the past to study STURP. They produced at least 20 papers to my knowledge, and a catalogue of photos in visible light, UV and X-RAY. They are the core of shroud research which is multifaceted. If you look at the photos that area is different.
That is all that is needed to red flag the date.

Rogers later thread photos show why, which cannot be explained by surface cotton.

History.
Radio Carbon ( aka Arizona lab) refused to publish marino and benfords paper on the grounds that they could not prove the idea of repair directly , but only from indicative data like reflectance .

The samples tested in the main were destroyed not characterised by the daters as protocol demanded, so it was somewhat an unreasonable request. It was the daters failure to characterise.

Notice some of the reviewers are known. They were very textile daters and experts that attended the tests, whose reputation would be on the line if Marino was right.

So Rogers (I think a reviewer and also the most knowledgeable man on the shroud all round) stated he could disprove Marino and benford in minutes,! but his examination of all the samples proved they were right.
He submitted the pictures to other reviewers. Still RC did not publish!
Since then as you know he published in thermochimica 2005 - whatever you think of his date method, it documents all the anomalies with raes. But if you want to see the pictures you need his conferences papers or book. Marino and benford later published in a chemistry journal.

By this time Rogers was a dying man, he committed that evidence to a conference and a book. I suspect he would have published a lot more given time. Nobody has ever disputed his final work. ( by which I mean the analysis of threads, not the alternative date method)

The reality is the testers knew little or nothing about the cloth hands on, nor do the later stats analysers know much about it.. So their conclusions do not line up with the reality of the cloth. It was not surface cotton that was found in the Raes sample. It was integral.

The medieaval date is not surprising for a medieaval Repair. The date variability not surprising for some old threads spliced in. The test heterogeneity makes the test void.

Do two things . Study STURP.
Also study the forensic correspondence of the Sudarium.

Opdrey said:

A repair that took about 80 years to complete and went from the outside to the inside of the cloth? That's imaginative.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point. If it is as suspected a repair weave, it mixes a few old frayed threads at the edge with Medieaval repair threads.. So it is a mixture of dates not a long duration repair.

My main contention: a hypothesis has to explain all the data not just one part.

The more ancient date indicated by linen decay is compatible with the forensic correspondence with the sudarium , and is compatible with the RC inhomegenity being indicative of mediaeval repair. It is compatible with Jerusalem type limestone. Etcetc. The mediaeval date/ fake hypothesis is incompatible with other evidence.

I have no idea who - if anyone reads these posts. Maybe nobody.
But it is time the record was set straight about the shroud, and the real science done in 1978.

1/ The 1978 sturp project was thoroughly professional. Unlike the later dating.
On the link you will find that the meetings over previous years yielded a peer reviewed plan.
The plan was executed as projected.
At least 20 papers were written (reviewed of course) - of which there is so much of it , that the central paper, Schwalbe and Rogers , only lists the scope of what was done and all the general conclusions. For the detail go to papers. For further detail and images of fibres and cloths, go to website images and books.
It also created a treasure trove of scans in natural light, UV, low energy XRAY etc, and a lot of fibre images all indexed and locations shown on photos in the database.
That is the master reference of what the shroud is. It is not a painting or artwork. The mark is inexplicable. It is real blood with real pathology.
The 1978 Scientific Examination
Sadly there is not room for all of the pictorial evidence to appear in papers. They are simply referrerd. And it is so wide ranging that beginners need books to make sense of it all

But also in that treasure trove an anomaly is noted. Rogers notes That the raes corner adjacent to the test sample contained cotton within the weave. (mentioned in Schwalbe and Rogers. The shroud itself has only a few surface fibres. That would become important later, as would the fact that the pictures show the later area sampled differs in UV, XRAY and visible light. It is clearly anomalous.

2/ Roll on to the most unprofessional "science" ever. The dating and daters.
Two years of meetings preceded it. And correspondence / minutes are available that can be read. It raised all sorts of issues including the need for multiple areas, for characterisation, for a blind controls and so on.

But instead of producing a peer reviewed test plan , identifying sample areas and processes, the daters failed to produce a plan and they marginalized everyone else, so most of the protocol was quietly forgotten or deliberately ignored..

The daters systematically excluded all of the people in STURP and anyone who had the a shred of belief in the authenticity. As a result the test team were blind about chemistry. Nobody was present or witnessing who knew anything of STURP science above. The daters were not and are not shroud scientists. They know little or nothing about it.

The test presided by Tite was a disaster from the off from the point of view of good science.

When they entered the room they had no idea of what they were going to sample!
how dare they? After all the professionalism of STURP, they were a disaster.They made it up as they went along. They picked the worst area possible. Consumate scientist rogers and meacham would have checked it before test, and agreed a detailed plan, and sample areas if they had been allowed.

Then a litany of failures. THere were three control samples present in the room, not just the two controls, and the shroud , put in cans.
So there is a legitimate concern of what was put in tubes? One sample was not used at all. It was all done away from camera and even basic weights and sizes did not add up. Who knows what went into cans. One of the textile experts (neither of whom knew the shroud, did not even show up till later!). One asked "whats that" pointing at the lance wound blood! shows they did not even bother to research it,and neither did the daters.

Far from testing with controls, the labs were given the dates of them! Outrageous! How then can they be controls? It means the samples were identified too, nothing blind at all. It was Unforgiveable. The labs conferred when they should have been prevented from it. They resisted witnesses. None of them characterised samples chemically. All notes red flags but then failed to deal with them.

Then after came the "unknown operation" that transformed the data into a paper, stating it was homogeneous. When it was inhomogenous. Unforgiveable.

The stats lab who was supposed to convert the data and makes sure no fiddling happened was not even appointed.

It was all a disgrace. Then of course came the questions.

3/ Ultimately proper science was allowed back in the room, But only after bad science had wasted a decade. Benford and marino showed that area was anomalous chemically, which you can see from the shroud archive, and proposed invisible reweave as the reason.
https://shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino2008.pdf
That is verified from STURP photos. In essence it does not matter why the area was anomalous, in chemical terms it was different, so the dating was not safe.

Rogers verified it by going back to the vault of documented samples of STURP. Remember them? All validated science from years before. Including RAES samples (yes he did a paper too). And that showed dye, spliced threads, cotton and all of the evidence that at some time the cloth was repaired. nobody had looked too hard at the raes sample fibres till then.

Then a legal FOI proved the data had been "Manipulated" from lab test to paper, so the RC test was invalid anyway.

Various other controlled tests (fanti) based on a suggestion by rogers, suggest first century.
The correspondence with the sudarium shows it must be a millenium older than the RC date.
Whatever the shroud is , is not medieaval and it is a crucified man compatible with middle east origin.


4/ A "conservation" done in 2000 has possibly wrecked a repeat dating, (thymol) and certainly messed with the dates. But they ignored meacham on that too.

And that brings us to where we are.

Except the daters so angered the pontifical academy and gonella in particular by their behaviour I doubt if the church wants any more to do with the unscientific community of daters

My suggestion of books is based on the fact it is very complex subject, and the papers alone have to be short so do not give a full picture. eg Rogers book is far more informative than any of his papers. Fantis book has a lot more raw data and images. I have many papers. The books are better.

The documentation in marinos book of all correspondence would never be allowed into a paper. But it shows how the dating fiasco came to pass and all the bad faith in the dating community.

AV1611VET said:

This is why I claim that finding rabbits int the Precambrian wouldn't falsify evolution.

Evolution is an unfalsifiable doctrine, and therefore unscientific.

Click to expand...

There are all sorts of tests that could possibly falsify it. You are conflating the minor changes that have improved the theory with it being unfalsifiable. If the theory was wrong it could be refuted. What you may not like is that the theory not only keeps passing test after test, but grows stronger and stronger every day.

Once again, "falsifiable" only means that if the theory is wrong that it could be shown to be wrong. Don't blame the theory for apparently being right.