It just blows my mind that we are having a discussion about the shroud of Turin being the best evidence for the existence of a supernatural being.
Is Atheism Irrational?
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
Be fair, TW. At least give him some time to paste "Los Alamos" into Lycos so he can do some learnin'.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
snort. this is almost the same comment, down to the wording, of some of those 1% anti-carbon scientists.
I have already referenced others from Los Alamos on this very thread...
Here are NINE from Los Alamos who say the 1988 Carbon Dating is false. They are just representative of one of many disciplines which have subsequently falsified the test. So much so that these falsifications have satisfied the father of Carbon 14 method used on the shroud, Harry Gove. Harry has been a long time hard core sceptic and has not always fought fair, imo.
http://shroudstory.com/2008/08/19/l...arbon-14-dating-of-the-shroud-of-turin-wrong/
"Using some of the most advanced analytical equipment available, a team of nine scientists at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed that the material used for radiocarbon dating of the shroud in 1988 was not part of the shroud’s fabric. Previously, micro-chemical tests had demonstrated that the cloth is at least twice as old as the medieval date determined by the now discredited carbon 14 tests. This gives new life to historical and forensic arguments that suggest that the shroud might be the burial cloth of Jesus."
Back at ya
Here are NINE from Los Alamos who say the 1988 Carbon Dating is false. They are just representative of one of many disciplines which have subsequently falsified the test. So much so that these falsifications have satisfied the father of Carbon 14 method used on the shroud, Harry Gove. Harry has been a long time hard core sceptic and has not always fought fair, imo.
http://shroudstory.com/2008/08/19/l...arbon-14-dating-of-the-shroud-of-turin-wrong/
"Using some of the most advanced analytical equipment available, a team of nine scientists at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed that the material used for radiocarbon dating of the shroud in 1988 was not part of the shroud’s fabric. Previously, micro-chemical tests had demonstrated that the cloth is at least twice as old as the medieval date determined by the now discredited carbon 14 tests. This gives new life to historical and forensic arguments that suggest that the shroud might be the burial cloth of Jesus."
Back at ya
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
Is it settled, or is it not settled?
We have a much better idea of what a document sitting before us "is" -- or we should, at least in comparison with something the magnitude and complexity of earth's system of climate
"Using some of the most advanced analytical equipment available, a team of nine scientists at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed that the material used for radiocarbon dating of the shroud in 1988 was not part of the shroud’s fabric. Previously, micro-chemical tests had demonstrated that the cloth is at least twice as old as the medieval date determined by the now discredited carbon 14 tests. This gives new life to historical and forensic arguments that suggest that the shroud might be the burial cloth of Jesus."
"Using some of the most advanced analytical equipment available, a team of nine scientists at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed that the material used for radiocarbon dating of the shroud in 1988 was not part of the shroud’s fabric. Previously, micro-chemical tests had demonstrated that the cloth is at least twice as old as the medieval date determined by the now discredited carbon 14 tests. This gives new life to historical and forensic arguments that suggest that the shroud might be the burial cloth of Jesus."
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
OK, so Los Alamos opinions are right when you agree with them but dim dam dum ass when you don't agree with them?
Is it settled, or is it not settled?
Is it settled, or is it not settled?
I don't know, maybe you and TW should get to know Raymond Rogers before you blindly and weakly paste shit, eh?
"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud," reports chemist Raymond Rogers, a fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
Fuck off. Ray is a long time sceptic...a good guy and a helluva scientist by all accounts...but he is running out of options. He understands that Science has proven what the Shroud is "Not".
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
lol, skeptics don't count? the opinions of a "helluva scientist" don't count?
THE SCIENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN
THE SCIENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN
Here's your boi, Raymond Rogers from Los Alamos (as you like it, bitch)
“The image is the result of many superficial yellow linen fibers. The color is discontinuously distributed in the image area, and does not penetrate either the cloth or the individual, microscopic linen fibers. Image distribution poses a perplexing problem for scientists.” Ray Rogers – A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin
“The image is the result of many superficial yellow linen fibers. The color is discontinuously distributed in the image area, and does not penetrate either the cloth or the individual, microscopic linen fibers. Image distribution poses a perplexing problem for scientists.” Ray Rogers – A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin
For the Legion of Moron, what that last quote means is that "the image does not permeate the fabric". You can take a razor blade and with the faintest touch lift the image.
Guys like Raymond Rogers want a rational reason for this and, of course, a rational reason is all that will do.
Nevertheless, the image produces widespread fascination among those scientists trying to determine its origin.
Guys like Raymond Rogers want a rational reason for this and, of course, a rational reason is all that will do.
Nevertheless, the image produces widespread fascination among those scientists trying to determine its origin.
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
Lectro, we're well aware that you're a fan of the irrational.
Not surprised that you add absolutely Nothing. You chose your name well.
Not much thought > double aught. That's your basic formula.
“The image is the result of many superficial yellow linen fibers. The color is discontinuously distributed in the image area, and does not penetrate either the cloth or the individual, microscopic linen fibers. Image distribution poses a perplexing problem for scientists.” Ray Rogers – A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin
Not much thought > double aught. That's your basic formula.
“The image is the result of many superficial yellow linen fibers. The color is discontinuously distributed in the image area, and does not penetrate either the cloth or the individual, microscopic linen fibers. Image distribution poses a perplexing problem for scientists.” Ray Rogers – A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin
BigTreeDeac
Ricky Peral
I honestly didn't think there was a subject you could show less comprehension in than football player evaluations. You continue to prove me wrong on every single thread remotely related to science. Rarely do I misjudge somebody's "talents" as much as I apparently have yours.
Don't let your inability to read even the simplest of scientific studies get in the way of misquoting and misrepresenting data to support your position. Nothing you have posted that linked to an actual scientific finding has said what you think it does. Hell you actually referenced a paper that detailed 5 years of experiments in which scientists were able to CREATE a similar image using UV light but you keep saying we can't make an image anything like it. This is a result of the fact you read press releases instead of actual findings. When I was in grad school, I discovered a protein that was critically involved in the immune response to a pathogen. When I wrote as much in the press release and sent it to the office in charge of publishing it, it got changed to "local group of researchers identify cure for highly deadly pathogen". Nevermind the fact that the pathogen isn't even particularly deadly, we didn't come anywhere close to finding a cure. That is why scientists read actual papers instead of sensationalized headlines and random quotes in Op-Ed pieces. Then again we have training in how to read papers and you don't even seem to have the ability to properly read a blog post.
Don't let your inability to read even the simplest of scientific studies get in the way of misquoting and misrepresenting data to support your position. Nothing you have posted that linked to an actual scientific finding has said what you think it does. Hell you actually referenced a paper that detailed 5 years of experiments in which scientists were able to CREATE a similar image using UV light but you keep saying we can't make an image anything like it. This is a result of the fact you read press releases instead of actual findings. When I was in grad school, I discovered a protein that was critically involved in the immune response to a pathogen. When I wrote as much in the press release and sent it to the office in charge of publishing it, it got changed to "local group of researchers identify cure for highly deadly pathogen". Nevermind the fact that the pathogen isn't even particularly deadly, we didn't come anywhere close to finding a cure. That is why scientists read actual papers instead of sensationalized headlines and random quotes in Op-Ed pieces. Then again we have training in how to read papers and you don't even seem to have the ability to properly read a blog post.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
"problem for science"? must be god
If you weren't so fucking conceited then you would examine the issue with more surface tension than even the Shroud displays.
There have been all kinds of copies done, some of them very good...but when deep examination ensues scientists find that these copies are a far cry from anything like the Shroud.
Learn to fucking read, pal. Don't skim and allow all a priori prejudices in. If you would even perform a cursory examination of science and it's evaluations of these "copies" you would have some GD idea as to what you are talking about. You don't and you won't.
Ubiquitous web excerpt on thinness of Shroud image:
"The image on the Turin Shroud, the very thin layer of caramel-like substance, 180-600 nanometers thick, is thinner than most bacteria . The layer can be seen by phase-contrast microscopy. And with a scanning electron microscope the fine crystalline structure of the carbohydrate layer can be discerned. The image resists normal bleaching by chemicals or by sunlight"
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Breaking news: Famed scientist Lectro calls the apparent image of Jesus on a piece of toast the best evidence for his existence ever. Consensus among most scientists is that this is just another example of pareidolia but Lectro says "They are just wrong and obviously scientifically illiterate. The layer of jam in which the image appears is so thin that it could only be supernatural in origin." More on this story at 11.
BigTreeDeac
Ricky Peral
"SHROUD–LIKE COLORATION OF LINEN FABRICS BY VACUUM ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION
Summary of the results obtained at ENEA Frascati in the years 2005 – 2010
Abstract
The body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet been explained by traditional science and the attempts to obtain a
similar image by chemical methods failed till now. As a consequence, a great interest in a possible mechanism of image
formation still exists. We present a summary of the results of five-years experiments of excimer laser irradiation
(spectrum of the emitted light in the ultraviolet and vacuum ultraviolet) of raw linen fabrics, seeking for a coloration
similar to that of the body image embedded onto the Shroud of Turin. We achieved a very superficial Shroud-like
coloration of linen yarns in a narrow range of irradiation parameters. We also obtained latent coloration that appears
after artificial or natural aging of linen following laser irradiations that at first did not generate any visible effect. Most
importantly, we have recognized distinct physical and photo-chemical processes that account for both coloration and
latent coloration. These processes may have played a role in the generation of the body image on the Shroud of Turin."
You mean like this study done by some of the very Italian scientists you are quoting in which they used UV light to create a superficial image that resembles what is seen on the shroud? Is this the type of science I should be examining or does it not count because it is the actual findings themselves and not an Op-Ed piece about the findings? I know you like to think you delve deeply into science but you can't even properly read an abstract (which isn't the mere "thumbnail" you make it out to be but rather the part of the paper where the authors summarize their own findings in order to draw attention to the study). If it were impossible to create a thin image like that on the Shroud, how would scientists be able to publish a study in which they were able to do it? I don't give a shit whether you think the Shroud is supernatural or not, just don't bastardize published scientific findings to say it has been conclusively proven to be impossible to reproduce when it was reproduced in published studies in the last decade. In fact, I don't really give a shit whether the Shroud is real or not. All I care about is that you stop bastardizing science to serve your personal/religious needs. I don't look to religion to answer science and you shouldn't look to science to answer religion and certainly not if you aren't even going to approach the science in a scientific manner.
Summary of the results obtained at ENEA Frascati in the years 2005 – 2010
Abstract
The body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet been explained by traditional science and the attempts to obtain a
similar image by chemical methods failed till now. As a consequence, a great interest in a possible mechanism of image
formation still exists. We present a summary of the results of five-years experiments of excimer laser irradiation
(spectrum of the emitted light in the ultraviolet and vacuum ultraviolet) of raw linen fabrics, seeking for a coloration
similar to that of the body image embedded onto the Shroud of Turin. We achieved a very superficial Shroud-like
coloration of linen yarns in a narrow range of irradiation parameters. We also obtained latent coloration that appears
after artificial or natural aging of linen following laser irradiations that at first did not generate any visible effect. Most
importantly, we have recognized distinct physical and photo-chemical processes that account for both coloration and
latent coloration. These processes may have played a role in the generation of the body image on the Shroud of Turin."
You mean like this study done by some of the very Italian scientists you are quoting in which they used UV light to create a superficial image that resembles what is seen on the shroud? Is this the type of science I should be examining or does it not count because it is the actual findings themselves and not an Op-Ed piece about the findings? I know you like to think you delve deeply into science but you can't even properly read an abstract (which isn't the mere "thumbnail" you make it out to be but rather the part of the paper where the authors summarize their own findings in order to draw attention to the study). If it were impossible to create a thin image like that on the Shroud, how would scientists be able to publish a study in which they were able to do it? I don't give a shit whether you think the Shroud is supernatural or not, just don't bastardize published scientific findings to say it has been conclusively proven to be impossible to reproduce when it was reproduced in published studies in the last decade. In fact, I don't really give a shit whether the Shroud is real or not. All I care about is that you stop bastardizing science to serve your personal/religious needs. I don't look to religion to answer science and you shouldn't look to science to answer religion and certainly not if you aren't even going to approach the science in a scientific manner.
Last edited:
Not amazed at pigeon-hole science and it's inability to confront the best physical evidence for a Supernatural event that we have in existence. I guess others want to wallow in the "it from bit" and ponder alternative universes.
Way to stay grounded.
"It appears that for every point supporting a specific hypothesis, two others arise to contradict the proposed theory. It is highly complex item with many unique characteristics and embedded anomalies. It’s a marvel and a mystery because the more that science explores the object, the richer and more complex the mystery becomes. Science does not have a comprehensive explanation, or a theory for its creation, nor can science replicate something coming even close to the image with its range of anomalies. Many images of a man have been produced using differing methods but not one with all the characteristics and anomalies that this object has."
Way to stay grounded.
"It appears that for every point supporting a specific hypothesis, two others arise to contradict the proposed theory. It is highly complex item with many unique characteristics and embedded anomalies. It’s a marvel and a mystery because the more that science explores the object, the richer and more complex the mystery becomes. Science does not have a comprehensive explanation, or a theory for its creation, nor can science replicate something coming even close to the image with its range of anomalies. Many images of a man have been produced using differing methods but not one with all the characteristics and anomalies that this object has."