My Historian Challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Meanwhile in the real world outside Subductions blind faith in atheism, the RC date was long ago discredited, there have been whole conferences on the shroud, many publications and books, and, by the science world at least, it is now accepted the shroud is far older, indeed the only way the mark can be simulated is high energy radiation burst. Even the Los Alamos scientist who headed up Sturp research who was long an advocate of the date, eventually agreed it was false, and that the fabric chemistry was anomalous for the age the daters claimed. He agreed a repair had been tested, not representative of the shroud.

That is simply not true. There may be some wackjobs out there that made that claim. But your wishing to believe that they are true does not make them true. I could give you links to articles explaining the carbon dating to you, but you seem to be aware of them. I can support my claim with valid sites. If you want me to support any claim I will gladly. But if you make a claim, as you have here, the burden of proof is upon you.

And if subduction cared about truth he would go to countless websites , books and papers that confirm what I said. Only flat earthers like Subduction and even more hopeless cases like Joe Nickell, still believe the erroneous date because their faith in atheism seemingly demands it.

Not my job. And I already have. That is why I appropriately called them "wackjobs".

For anyone else, who is interested in truth.My suggestion is Get Fanti's book, and possibly Janice Connels book on the sudarium.
The latter gives a fascinating insight into crucifixion, the role of a sudarium in stemming blood and fluid flow. How it was folded around the head of a crucifixion fatality prior to bringing down , and the forensic correspondence of the shroud showing the RC date was silly.

Once again, your claim, your duty to supply the evidence.

But then shroud watchers already knew that. Even the daters knew the fabric was different, they said so, but conveniently did not comment on that when their date made no sense.

Nope, this is a nonsense claim from a bunch of wackos. The fabric was carefully chosen. They made sure that it was the same.

So please subduction? look at the facts, then comment second, is far better order than yours! What did you think of the chemical ,raman and mechanical tests that date the shroud. Fascinating heh! Or it would be if you cared about science!

I have looked at the facts. Your side had none. It is apparent that they had none. But if you want to discuss your claims properly. That means one at a time. I will gladly do so.

 

[Belk]

Ya ... but who actually did the footwork?

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, archeologists. Historians are the guys who study the written record. Archeologists would be the ones digging up bones.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-an-archaeologist-and-a-historian

 

[AV1611VET]

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, archeologists. Historians are the guys who study the written record. Archeologists would be the ones digging up bones.

Whatever.

One robs graves, and the other writes them up.

 

[Belk]

Whatever.

One robs graves, and the other writes them up.

If you are going to get upset over the answer perhaps you should not ask the question.

 

[Mountainmike]

Subduction.

This conversation is pointless. You are not interested in the science. If you were you would know the RC date was discredited, and a lot of credible science agrees to far earlier date. I have already posted the daters comments that they themselves knew the sample was anomalous, later proven beyond doubt.

Now Read it, if you care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction.

This conversation is pointless. You are not interested in the science. If you were you would know the RC date was discredited, and a lot of credible science agrees to far earlier date. I have already posted the daters comments that they themselves knew the sample was anomalous, later proven beyond doubt.

Now Read it, if you care.

Where? I doubt if they made such comments. Some Christians have this terrible tendency to quote out of context. It is a form of lying called "quote mining". You may not realize it but that is probably the case. Meanwhile here is just one of the many articles that explains why you are wrong. If you are interested in the truth you will read it:

Shroud of Turin - RationalWiki

Believing in fake magic objects only harms Christianity in the long run. I would suggest that you reconsider your beliefs.

 

[Mountainmike]

Subduction.
If you had done me the courtesy of reading , you would have seen just some of the quotes about the samplers and testing where they themselves note "unusual fibres". The RC test is long discredited.

Rational wiki like skedpdic is a crank site. No wonder you have bizarre views.. I prefer science. Read it. Shroud.com is a good reference for science.

It is of no consequence to me whether it is real or not, so I can be objective about it. The evidence says real, I would be happy for that to be proved wrong. But it never has been, and increasingly the evidence is ovewhelming for real.

I have wasted enough time answering someone who does not care about truth. End of discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction.
If you had done me the courtesy of reading , you would have seen just some of the quotes about the samplers and testing where they themselves note "unusual fibres". The RC test is long discredited.

Wrong again. Just because some disappointed hacks make a claim does not make it so. Until you have something more than unsubstantiated claims you lose. And the shroud of Turin is still a fake. Why would you put so much credibility into such an obvious fake? It is almost as if you don't really believe the Jesus story. If you need a fake to make your faith strong it tells me that you have a rather weak faith.

Rational wiki like skedpdic is a crank site. No wonder you have bizarre views.. I prefer science. Read it. Shroud.com is a good reference for science.

No, wrong again, you are the one that follows crank sites. And I have read the lunacy and lies at shroud.com. It is not to be trusted. And you really do not prefer science. I can tell. If you are against the theory of evolution then you do not know what science is.

It is of no consequence to me whether it is real or not, so I can be objective about it. The evidence says real, I would be happy for that to be proved wrong. But it never has been, and increasingly the evidence is ovewhelming for real.

Of course it matters to you. This is a fake. It was recognized as a fake when it first was given to the Catholic Church. They merely kept it, like they do with all sorts of such gifts. Where is this supposed evidence? You have not presented one iota. Once again, your claims, you are the one that needs to substantiate them.

I have wasted enough time answering someone who does not care about truth. End of discussion.

Then once again you have lost. Right now the world knows that the shroud is a fake. It got tested and the experts agreed that the tests were proper at that time. A couple of testers with no honor did not like the results. If they thought that something was wrong the time to complain was before the testing was done. You did not address any of the claims in the article that I linked for you.

But here is your chance. How did the fibers from the shroud give the wrong date? Give me your best argument and I will explain to you how you are wrong.

 

[Mountainmike]

Subduction.
There is no evidence the shroud is a fake, what there was has been discredited. The (real) science convinces me, but then it would: I am a postgrad professional scientist. Clearly nothing will convince atheist religious zealots such as you, so believe whatever you wish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction.
There is no evidence the shroud is a fake, what there was has been discredited. The (real) science convinces me, but then it would: I am a postgrad professional scientist. Clearly nothing will convince atheist religious zealots such as you, so believe whatever you wish.

What science are you a studying? Your claim appears to be rather bogus to put it mildly. Any actual grad student would know how to support his claims. So far I am the only one that has supported their claims in this discussion.

Until you a least put up some support you lose.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am not obliged to do your research for you, and there are plenty of scientific papers that invalidate your dating. It is your job to read them BEFORE you comment, and ensure that what you post is true, not my job to reproduce them for you. Take just the difference between the Raes and C14 samples - cotton vs linen - is plenty enough to fatally undermine the RC date, for which there is now more than "reasonable doubt". . As were the comments noted by samplers and testers about discrepancies in the samples. Even the oxford lab is no longer dogmatic about the date.

You clearly have not researched it, and the fact you read rationalwiki at all, hopelessly undermines your credibilty . I have repeated elsewhere that I have been professionally employed in both small (quantum , radiation physics) and large (astronomy, astrophysics). And it makes no difference in principle to me if the shroud is a fake or real. But the scientific consensus is increasingly that it is real. And it is also an enigma, which is why it interests me.

What science are you a studying? Your claim appears to be rather bogus to put it mildly. Any actual grad student would know how to support his claims. So far I am the only one that has supported their claims in this discussion.

Until you a least put up some support you lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once more on the shroud of Turin for Mike:

The radio carbon tests have been found to be valid. Here is a peer reviewed article that states there was no repair at the site of the test:

There is no mass spectrometry evidence that the C14 sample from the Shroud of Turin comes from a “medieval invisible mending”

I don't expect you to buy the article so here is another where its contents are discussed:

Investigative Briefs: Turin “Shroud” Still a Fake - Center for Inquiry

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not obliged to do your research for you, and there are plenty of scientific papers that invalidate your dating. It is your job to read them BEFORE you comment, and ensure that what you post is true, not my job to reproduce them for you. Take just the difference between the Raes and C14 samples - cotton vs linen - is plenty enough to fatally undermine the RC date, for which there is now more than "reasonable doubt". . As were the comments noted by samplers and testers about discrepancies in the samples. Even the oxford lab is no longer dogmatic about the date.

Actually it is not "my research". This is your research. If you make a claim it is up to you to support it. But while you were running away from your duties I refuted your claim (see above post).

Now you need to explain why there is any doubt at all about the C14 dating. You probably can't since you seem to have no clue at all as to how objects are dated.

You clearly have not researched it, and the fact you read rationalwiki at all, hopelessly undermines your credibilty . I have repeated elsewhere that I have been professionally employed in both small (quantum , radiation physics) and large (astronomy, astrophysics). And it makes no difference in principle to me if the shroud is a fake or real. But the scientific consensus is increasingly that it is real. And it is also an enigma, which is why it interests me.

Nope, you found an even lower source. At least my sources are always based upon peer reviewed science. You won't even post a source since you seem to know that they are rather pathetic.

In debates evidence is king. You haven't posted any. You are now far far behind me in evidence. Without evidence you lose.

 

[Mountainmike]

Since even the oxford lab now questions the date, you really are a flat earther subduction, and also not worth wasting more time on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since even the oxford lab now questions the date, you really are a flat earther subduction, and also not worth wasting more time on.

If they do why don't you post their supposed claims? I did my homework, why don't you do yours?

A real scientist would know how to support his claims. Until you post something that supports your empty claims you lose.

 

[Ophiolite]

Since even the oxford lab now questions the date, you really are a flat earther subduction, and also not worth wasting more time on.

From an outsiders point of view, subduction's citations appear much more convincing than yours. Your response here has the appearance of someone running away because they are loosing the argument. I imagine you would not wish to appear that way, so perhaps you can offer something a little more convincing, recent, or solid.

 

[Mountainmike]

If they do why don't you post their supposed claims? I did my homework, why don't you do yours?

A real scientist would know how to support his claims. Until you post something that supports your empty claims you lose.

It is nothing to do with winning or losing and all about truth.
If you claim to have studied the shroud, you will have seen the statements by the oxford lab. If not, more fool you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is nothing to do with winning or losing and all about truth.

Then quit whining and show that you have something. In football if a team only gets a safety and the other team does nothing the team with the safety wins. So far you have done nothing. The "truth" is not on your side.

If you claim to have studied the shroud, you will have seen the statements by the oxford lab. If not, more fool you.

Then post the links. If your claim is valid you might convert someone. I will not do your homework for you.

 

[Mountainmike]

From an outsiders point of view, subduction's citations appear much more convincing than yours. Your response here has the appearance of someone running away because they are loosing the argument. I imagine you would not wish to appear that way, so perhaps you can offer something a little more convincing, recent, or solid.

With respect there is an entire website, numerous books and conferences about the shroud. Study them. I have also posted the concerns that the actual testers had about the samples!

And the consensus is the RC date is no longer reliable. Only noisy atheists try to defend it now, but the fact that subduction even reads rational wiki, says all you need to know about him.
He has an apriori position as athiest and only interest in evidence that supports his case, however discredited. You as agnostic have a far more tenable rational position.

I can only suggest you look at both the papers that challenge the RC date (various), then the hungarian codex, the forensic similarities with the sudarium, the several datings of fanti, the lack of lignin and so on.

Of course subduction witll drown out the evidence with his endless illinformed rant. Which I for one will no longer continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mike, all that I ask is that you support your claims with credible sources. I have so far. You haven't. Just because you find a poster that agrees with you does not make it credible. I can't even find a credible source that supports your claims. Meanwhile here is one more for you. The shroud was tested at three agencies. They all agreed that it was a fraud:

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin