Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Craig,

- I can't help myself... I have to try to answer these little questions.
- The trouble is that it would require a lot of time to dig up the evidence for my claims -- so for now, I'll have to provide my claims without any evidence for them...

It would take forever to dig up your evidence, because there isn't any.
Claims without evidence? Don't bother. For that, you have come to the wrong place.

Quote:

- If I could focus on one issue at a time, you would see whether I have the goods (the evidence) or not.
- Is there any way for you guys to vote on which question or objection I should focus upon?

I vote for the C14 issue. Work your way around that, and we can look at the next.

Quote:

- Re #1: Yes -- I disagree. My claim is that there is all sorts of evidence out there that supports A) a much earlier date, and also B) weakness in the carbon dating.

Provide it, or it doesn't exist.

Quote:

- Re #2: They have two reasons: A) They are afraid that further testing might show the same results -- and they would rather have a "maybe real" shroud than a "clearly fake" shroud, and they don't want to risk the latter.

That is the path to enlightment. Congratulations.

Quote:

B) If the Shroud is real, they sincerely don't want to further “desecrate” it.

Rubbish. The pope would desecrate his mother for scientific proof of anything. The scientific method is the slow but certain death of religion.

Quote:

- Re #4: They (we) have pretty much given up -- though recently (at least), some knowledgeable devotees have suggested ways that they say would cause little or no "desecration"…

There are other methods of analysis than C14 (and modern methods of that uses only very small samples), which are entirely non-destructive.

After you have addressed the C14 issue, I suggest you address the replication issue:

- Replication should be easy, were the shroud genuine:

1) Get a cloth of the proper type and size (produce it, if need be).

2) Tap some blood from a volunteer.

3) Smear the blood in the relevant places on a (same or other) volunteer with a plausible look and stature for the Biblical Jesus.

4) Place said volunteer in the proper position and vrap him in the cloth. Have him lie as still as possible.

5) After a while, unwrap, and compare the images.

6) The general lay-out and appearance of the images should be identical.

Hans

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

.... The trouble is that it would require a lot of time to dig up the evidence for my claims -- so for now, I'll have to provide my claims without any evidence for them...
- If I could focus on one issue at a time, you would see whether I have the goods (the evidence) or not.
- Is there any way for you guys to vote on which question or objection I should focus upon?

- I counted the number of different posters (other than me) on the last two pages -- most of them requiring or deserving responses – and, I got 20.
- Then, on one of those pages, I divided the posts into what I considered different subtopics, and got 13. 14 posts on one of the subtopics; 7 on another; 4 on another; 3 on 2; 2 on 1; and 1, on the rest. The subtopic wit 14 references was the one about the credibility of my sources.
- If I ever feel like I can devote the time, I’ll try to name and describe each (a few pages back, Ladewig had asked me to do that in general)...

You have a website on the subject yet can't readily marshal your facts?
And yet you have the time to count and 'qualify' the answers you get here?

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Can someone save me some time and remind me of the articles to which you guys have already referred, and also any articles you rely on that haven't been mentioned?...- I'll provide my list of basic pro-authenticity articles as soon as possible.

Now you want the forum to repost their posts?
Are you serious?

I'm looking forward to the list 'of basic pro-authenticity articles'.
Of course Jabba will include reasons as to why each article is worth reading.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

IanS,
- I don't understand how you can say that after my reference to to the Allday article, and all the different obvious issues regarding "peer-review."
--- Jabba

Well Jabba, with the best will in the world - That IS the POINT!

The "POINT" IS, as you say yourself - - apparently you do not "understand" the difference between real science journals vs. popular level commercial publications such as industry magazines and also what have now appeared in the US as religious propaganda magazines.

I'll try to explain the difference for you, but please accept something here as true - I am not in any sense at all trying to fool you or mislead you in any way in the following explanation, but you need to understand this difference, otherwise you will never realise why you yourself are being taken-in by what is quite blatent religious propaganda. The following is a rather lengthy explanation, but bear with me, and please read it …

... the difference is that the genuine scientific research literature consists of about a dozen different journal titles in each small sub-field of science, eg say Inorganic Chemistry ... so for example when Inorganic research chemists want to publish new research, they submit a "paper" to one of those 12 journals. The same thing happens in organic chemistry, in Physics, in Maths, in Evolutionary biology, in Palaeontology etc...each sub-section of those scientific disciplines has a choice of around a dozen well known research journals to which practicing registered academic research scientists can submit their latest work.

With me so far? OK ... now, the oldest of those journals was first published around 200 years ago (from memory, without looking things up), and was probably something like the UK chemistry journal Proceedings of the Royal Society (ie "Proc.Roy.Soc."). Most of the journals have been going for around 70 to 100 years or more, though in recent decades some newer journals have appeared...eg when I was doing a PhD in a Chrmistry lab at London Univ. a relativity new journal appeared called Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry ("JINCS")...it was a rather second rate journal that we used to call "Jinx".

As a member of the ordinary public you will not normally qualify to publish work in any of those journals - you have to be a registered research level academic, which in the UK (and probably also in the US and elsewhere too afaik) effectively means that you must be a university lecturer. For example, when I published my first paper in my own single name (ie without any other authors on the paper) I was doing a Post. Doc., and I had to get one of the departments full-time lecturers to submit the paper on my behalf.

As a slight diversion from this explanation - some people here may not realise, and may be surprised to learn, that almost all research, anywhere in the world, is done by Univ. lectures ... that's what we normally mean by "research" (I'm only talking about top level science here). Eg, people like Stephen Hawking are university lectures, that is their main job, and that job entails some lecturing and some supervision of a research group, ie a group of students and post docs who lecturers like prof. Hawking slowly gather together to do the actual research work, and then when they find something worth publishing they consult with their "supervisor" ie in this case Stephen Hawking, and together Hawking and his group of research students will decide how to write-up their experiments and calculations in the quite exacting format required by the various research journals, and then they will submit that first draft paper to the editor of the journal ... and the editor then sends out copies to three specialist referees (ie specialist academics working in the same field as Hawking) who either agree that it should be published or not, and then the editor either decides to publish it or returns it with requests for changes and further explanation etc.

OK, now ... in all that time, 200 years or so since the first research journals began publishing scientific research, all through the time when Darwin was publishing, when Einstein was submitting his papers on relativity, when the very first proponents of Quantum Mechanics such as Schrodinger, Bohr, Heisenberg and Dirac were doing their research as Univ. lecturers and publishing their papers in those same scientific research journals ...

... in all that 200 years, and from what are now literally hundreds of millions of submitted papers, not one single scientist has ever made the mistake of submitting a paper to a popular-level magazine such as Physics Ed. or Scientific American, and certainly never to any religious propaganda magazine published by groups like the US creationists and the US pro-shroud groups like STURP. Genuine science research papers have never been published in any of those religious or popular magazines, even if they call themselves "journals" as those religious propaganda groups like to do.

The reason that no genuine scientist ever makes the mistake of submitting a real research paper to the kind of religious magazines ("journals") that you are citing as "sources" is that genuine scientists are mostly not even aware that religious propaganda publications like that exist, because they are not any part of genuine science, and of course as I explained above in any Univ. research lab all the staff and students know the titles of about a dozen or so genuine journals to which they usually send their research papers ... so each group typically sends it’s work to the same small group of journals each time ... eg when I was doing a PhD in a chemistry lab (although personally my research had drifted into theoretical solid-state physics and quantum mechanics) we would always submit to J.Am.Chem.Soc. if we thought we had something really top level, or if we thought our current bit of research was not quite top level then we'd submit the paper to J.Chem.Soc (that's a UK version of the American J.Am.Chem.Soc), or if it was just a very short piece of work described in just one or two A4 pages then we'd submit it to something called Chem. Commun. ("Chemical Communications" ... which is a sub-journal of the UK J.Chem. Soc.) ... the idea that we might have mistakenly ever submitted anything to say Scientific American or Physics Ed. is frankly hilarious ... and even more hilarious (if that's possible) is the suggestion that we might have unwittingly ever sent a paper to any shroud publication or creationist "journal".

I'm telling you all that to explain how genuine research scientists always know which journals to submit their papers too, and why there is never any possibility of them publishing real research in such things as shroud-group publications, or in popular level magazines like Scientific American ... magazines like that are completely unequipped to deal with or to judge real research science, staff on those magazines are in absolutely no position at all to understand the sort papers submitted by Stephen Hawking and Ed Whitten (string theory guy).

That's why there is a huge unbridgeable gulf between real science journals and the sort of publications you are listing as what you call your "sources".

What you are listing are, for the tenth time, most definitely religious shroud propaganda magazines published by US pro Christian groups - yes they are often deliberately presented to look as if they may be real science journals, and as I've explained here many times before, that is precisely because those religious groups want their Christian readers to think their publications really do have some scientific merit ... well they do not, they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of the real research journals which I have described to you above.

You really must understand that difference.

Otherwise if you do not understand the difference which I’ve now explained to you at length above, you will always be wide open to being fooled by religious propaganda publications from groups like the US shroud groups and the various US creationist groups ... in the US, those groups are extremely well funded by US Christian fundamentalist churches ... that really does not happen at all, or not to any remotely noticeable extent, in the UK or Europe - in the UK nobody is any doubt about which publications come from real research Journals vs. which are from Christian fundamentalists, because we really don’t have any such religious industry trying to con people with their own pseudo/fake journals (at least not that I've ever been aware of).

[tsig]

Originally Posted by IanS

Well Jabba, with the best will in the world - That IS the POINT!

The "POINT" IS, as you say yourself - - apparently you do not "understand" the difference between real science journals vs. popular level commercial publications such as industry magazines and also what have now appeared in the US as religious propaganda magazines.

I'll try to explain the difference for you, but please accept something here as true - I am not in any sense at all trying to fool you or mislead you in any way in the following explanation, but you need to understand this difference, otherwise you will never realise why you yourself are being taken-in by what is quite blatent religious propaganda. The following is a rather lengthy explanation, but bear with me, and please read it …

... the difference is that the genuine scientific research literature consists of about a dozen different journal titles in each small sub-field of science, eg say Inorganic Chemistry ... so for example when Inorganic research chemists want to publish new research, they submit a "paper" to one of those 12 journals. The same thing happens in organic chemistry, in Physics, in Maths, in Evolutionary biology, in Palaeontology etc...each sub-section of those scientific disciplines has a choice of around a dozen well known research journals to which practicing registered academic research scientists can submit their latest work.

With me so far? OK ... now, the oldest of those journals was first published around 200 years ago (from memory, without looking things up), and was probably something like the UK chemistry journal Proceedings of the Royal Society (ie "Proc.Roy.Soc."). Most of the journals have been going for around 70 to 100 years or more, though in recent decades some newer journals have appeared...eg when I was doing a PhD in a Chrmistry lab at London Univ. a relativity new journal appeared called Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry ("JINCS")...it was a rather second rate journal that we used to call "Jinx".

As a member of the ordinary public you will not normally qualify to publish work in any of those journals - you have to be a registered research level academic, which in the UK (and probably also in the US and elsewhere too afaik) effectively means that you must be a university lecturer. For example, when I published my first paper in my own single name (ie without any other authors on the paper) I was doing a Post. Doc., and I had to get one of the departments full-time lecturers to submit the paper on my behalf.

As a slight diversion from this explanation - some people here may not realise, and may be surprised to learn, that almost all research, anywhere in the world, is done by Univ. lectures ... that's what we normally mean by "research" (I'm only talking about top level science here). Eg, people like Stephen Hawking are university lectures, that is their main job, and that job entails some lecturing and some supervision of a research group, ie a group of students and post docs who lecturers like prof. Hawking slowly gather together to do the actual research work, and then when they find something worth publishing they consult with their "supervisor" ie in this case Stephen Hawking, and together Hawking and his group of research students will decide how to write-up their experiments and calculations in the quite exacting format required by the various research journals, and then they will submit that first draft paper to the editor of the journal ... and the editor then sends out copies to three specialist referees (ie specialist academics working in the same field as Hawking) who either agree that it should be published or not, and then the editor either decides to publish it or returns it with requests for changes and further explanation etc.

OK, now ... in all that time, 200 years or so since the first research journals began publishing scientific research, all through the time when Darwin was publishing, when Einstein was submitting his papers on relativity, when the very first proponents of Quantum Mechanics such as Schrodinger, Bohr, Heisenberg and Dirac were doing their research as Univ. lecturers and publishing their papers in those same scientific research journals ...

... in all that 200 years, and from what are now literally hundreds of millions of submitted papers, not one single scientist has ever made the mistake of submitting a paper to a popular-level magazine such as Physics Ed. or Scientific American, and certainly never to any religious propaganda magazine published by groups like the US creationists and the US pro-shroud groups like STURP. Genuine science research papers have never been published in any of those religious or popular magazines, even if they call themselves "journals" as those religious propaganda groups like to do.

The reason that no genuine scientist ever makes the mistake of submitting a real research paper to the kind of religious magazines ("journals") that you are citing as "sources" is that genuine scientists are mostly not even aware that religious propaganda publications like that exist, because they are not any part of genuine science, and of course as I explained above in any Univ. research lab all the staff and students know the titles of about a dozen or so genuine journals to which they usually send their research papers ... so each group typically sends it’s work to the same small group of journals each time ... eg when I was doing a PhD in a chemistry lab (although personally my research had drifted into theoretical solid-state physics and quantum mechanics) we would always submit to J.Am.Chem.Soc. if we thought we had something really top level, or if we thought our current bit of research was not quite top level then we'd submit the paper to J.Chem.Soc (that's a UK version of the American J.Am.Chem.Soc), or if it was just a very short piece of work described in just one or two A4 pages then we'd submit it to something called Chem. Commun. ("Chemical Communications" ... which is a sub-journal of the UK J.Chem. Soc.) ... the idea that we might have mistakenly ever submitted anything to say Scientific American or Physics Ed. is frankly hilarious ... and even more hilarious (if that's possible) is the suggestion that we might have unwittingly ever sent a paper to any shroud publication or creationist "journal".

I'm telling you all that to explain how genuine research scientists always know which journals to submit their papers too, and why there is never any possibility of them publishing real research in such things as shroud-group publications, or in popular level magazines like Scientific American ... magazines like that are completely unequipped to deal with or to judge real research science, staff on those magazines are in absolutely no position at all to understand the sort papers submitted by Stephen Hawking and Ed Whitten (string theory guy).

That's why there is a huge unbridgeable gulf between real science journals and the sort of publications you are listing as what you call your "sources".

What you are listing are, for the tenth time, most definitely religious shroud propaganda magazines published by US pro Christian groups - yes they are often deliberately presented to look as if they may be real science journals, and as I've explained here many times before, that is precisely because those religious groups want their Christian readers to think their publications really do have some scientific merit ... well they do not, they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of the real research journals which I have described to you above.

You really must understand that difference.

Otherwise if you do not understand the difference which I’ve now explained to you at length above, you will always be wide open to being fooled by religious propaganda publications from groups like the US shroud groups and the various US creationist groups ... in the US, those groups are extremely well funded by US Christian fundamentalist churches ... that really does not happen at all, or not to any remotely noticeable extent, in the UK or Europe - in the UK nobody is any doubt about which publications come from real research Journals vs. which are from Christian fundamentalists, because we really don’t have any such religious industry trying to con people with their own pseudo/fake journals (at least not that I've ever been aware of).

Good post but I fear you are casting your seeds on fallow ground.

[pakeha]

Possibly, but it's great for those of us outside the 'peer-reviewed' loop who want to learn!

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Doesn't idolatry of this shroud violate the second commandment anyway?

The Ten Commandments as taught by the Catholic Church do not have anything about idolatry in them.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by tsig

Good post but I fear you are casting your seeds on fallow ground.

You mean stony ground, surely. See Mark 4:5. According to the Bing dictionary, "fallow" means "left unseeded to recover natural fertility". I'm by no means sure that this recovered natural fertility of mind is what you are referring to.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by IanS

Well Jabba, with the best will in the world - That IS the POINT!

The "POINT" IS, as you say yourself - - apparently you do not "understand" the difference between real science journals vs. popular level commercial publications

One last thought about popular commercial publications. If you read an article in one of those magazines and are about to cite it, the best thing you can do is obtain the next three issues of the magazine and look in both the corrections column and the letters to the editor. Qualified individuals will often write in explaining the flaws in the published article.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Jeff,
- Can you refer me to a confirming article?
--- Jabba

http://williamcalvin.com/bk2/bk2ch10.htm

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The Ten Commandments as taught by the Catholic Church do not have anything about idolatry in them.

Remarkable! I was just discussing that with my wife yesterday - a Catholic. She was unaware that there are different Catholic and other Ten Commandments. The Catholics omit the second, because they don't obey it, which makes sense; and to make up the ten, they split the tenth, into prohibitions on coveting a neighbour's wife, and coveting his goods, as separate injunctions. Thus a coveted wife gets a whole commandment to herself, and doesn't simply appear as an item in the list of coveted possessions.

These are improvements on the Deuteronomy 5 list, from which they are taken. But it's not difficult to improve on the utterances of the monster divinity to whom the Torah is attributed.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

http://williamcalvin.com/bk2/bk2ch10.htm

Jeff,
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Remarkable! I was just discussing that with my wife yesterday - a Catholic. She was unaware that there are different Catholic and other Ten Commandments. The Catholics omit the second, because they don't obey it, which makes sense; and to make up the ten, they split the tenth, into prohibitions on coveting a neighbour's wife, and coveting his goods, as separate injunctions. Thus a coveted wife gets a whole commandment to herself, and doesn't simply appear as an item in the list of coveted possessions.

Indeedy-do.

This is why I contend that those "Ten Commandments" postings that actually list the commandments must violate the 1st amendment because they must choose a preferred version, which, by any definition, "respects the establishment of religion" even if you insist that it means the establishment of A PREFERRED religion.

How can you pick a version of the 10 commandments and not say that you are not choosing a preferred religious message?

[wollery]

Originally Posted by IanS

Well Jabba, with the best will in the world - That IS the POINT!

The "POINT" IS, as you say yourself - - apparently you do not "understand" the difference between real science journals vs. popular level commercial publications such as industry magazines and also what have now appeared in the US as religious propaganda magazines.

I'll try to explain the difference for you, but please accept something here as true - I am not in any sense at all trying to fool you or mislead you in any way in the following explanation, but you need to understand this difference, otherwise you will never realise why you yourself are being taken-in by what is quite blatent religious propaganda. The following is a rather lengthy explanation, but bear with me, and please read it …

... the difference is that the genuine scientific research literature consists of about a dozen different journal titles in each small sub-field of science, eg say Inorganic Chemistry ... so for example when Inorganic research chemists want to publish new research, they submit a "paper" to one of those 12 journals. The same thing happens in organic chemistry, in Physics, in Maths, in Evolutionary biology, in Palaeontology etc...each sub-section of those scientific disciplines has a choice of around a dozen well known research journals to which practicing registered academic research scientists can submit their latest work.

With me so far? OK ... now, the oldest of those journals was first published around 200 years ago (from memory, without looking things up), and was probably something like the UK chemistry journal Proceedings of the Royal Society (ie "Proc.Roy.Soc."). Most of the journals have been going for around 70 to 100 years or more, though in recent decades some newer journals have appeared...eg when I was doing a PhD in a Chrmistry lab at London Univ. a relativity new journal appeared called Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry ("JINCS")...it was a rather second rate journal that we used to call "Jinx".

As a member of the ordinary public you will not normally qualify to publish work in any of those journals - you have to be a registered research level academic, which in the UK (and probably also in the US and elsewhere too afaik) effectively means that you must be a university lecturer. For example, when I published my first paper in my own single name (ie without any other authors on the paper) I was doing a Post. Doc., and I had to get one of the departments full-time lecturers to submit the paper on my behalf.

As a slight diversion from this explanation - some people here may not realise, and may be surprised to learn, that almost all research, anywhere in the world, is done by Univ. lectures ... that's what we normally mean by "research" (I'm only talking about top level science here). Eg, people like Stephen Hawking are university lectures, that is their main job, and that job entails some lecturing and some supervision of a research group, ie a group of students and post docs who lecturers like prof. Hawking slowly gather together to do the actual research work, and then when they find something worth publishing they consult with their "supervisor" ie in this case Stephen Hawking, and together Hawking and his group of research students will decide how to write-up their experiments and calculations in the quite exacting format required by the various research journals, and then they will submit that first draft paper to the editor of the journal ... and the editor then sends out copies to three specialist referees (ie specialist academics working in the same field as Hawking) who either agree that it should be published or not, and then the editor either decides to publish it or returns it with requests for changes and further explanation etc.

OK, now ... in all that time, 200 years or so since the first research journals began publishing scientific research, all through the time when Darwin was publishing, when Einstein was submitting his papers on relativity, when the very first proponents of Quantum Mechanics such as Schrodinger, Bohr, Heisenberg and Dirac were doing their research as Univ. lecturers and publishing their papers in those same scientific research journals ...

... in all that 200 years, and from what are now literally hundreds of millions of submitted papers, not one single scientist has ever made the mistake of submitting a paper to a popular-level magazine such as Physics Ed. or Scientific American, and certainly never to any religious propaganda magazine published by groups like the US creationists and the US pro-shroud groups like STURP. Genuine science research papers have never been published in any of those religious or popular magazines, even if they call themselves "journals" as those religious propaganda groups like to do.

The reason that no genuine scientist ever makes the mistake of submitting a real research paper to the kind of religious magazines ("journals") that you are citing as "sources" is that genuine scientists are mostly not even aware that religious propaganda publications like that exist, because they are not any part of genuine science, and of course as I explained above in any Univ. research lab all the staff and students know the titles of about a dozen or so genuine journals to which they usually send their research papers ... so each group typically sends it’s work to the same small group of journals each time ... eg when I was doing a PhD in a chemistry lab (although personally my research had drifted into theoretical solid-state physics and quantum mechanics) we would always submit to J.Am.Chem.Soc. if we thought we had something really top level, or if we thought our current bit of research was not quite top level then we'd submit the paper to J.Chem.Soc (that's a UK version of the American J.Am.Chem.Soc), or if it was just a very short piece of work described in just one or two A4 pages then we'd submit it to something called Chem. Commun. ("Chemical Communications" ... which is a sub-journal of the UK J.Chem. Soc.) ... the idea that we might have mistakenly ever submitted anything to say Scientific American or Physics Ed. is frankly hilarious ... and even more hilarious (if that's possible) is the suggestion that we might have unwittingly ever sent a paper to any shroud publication or creationist "journal".

I'm telling you all that to explain how genuine research scientists always know which journals to submit their papers too, and why there is never any possibility of them publishing real research in such things as shroud-group publications, or in popular level magazines like Scientific American ... magazines like that are completely unequipped to deal with or to judge real research science, staff on those magazines are in absolutely no position at all to understand the sort papers submitted by Stephen Hawking and Ed Whitten (string theory guy).

That's why there is a huge unbridgeable gulf between real science journals and the sort of publications you are listing as what you call your "sources".

What you are listing are, for the tenth time, most definitely religious shroud propaganda magazines published by US pro Christian groups - yes they are often deliberately presented to look as if they may be real science journals, and as I've explained here many times before, that is precisely because those religious groups want their Christian readers to think their publications really do have some scientific merit ... well they do not, they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of the real research journals which I have described to you above.

You really must understand that difference.

Otherwise if you do not understand the difference which I’ve now explained to you at length above, you will always be wide open to being fooled by religious propaganda publications from groups like the US shroud groups and the various US creationist groups ... in the US, those groups are extremely well funded by US Christian fundamentalist churches ... that really does not happen at all, or not to any remotely noticeable extent, in the UK or Europe - in the UK nobody is any doubt about which publications come from real research Journals vs. which are from Christian fundamentalists, because we really don’t have any such religious industry trying to con people with their own pseudo/fake journals (at least not that I've ever been aware of).

Excellent post, but I have a couple of minor quibbles. I don't know how things work in chemistry, but I'll assume that your description is accurate. It doesn't work the same way in other fields. In Astronomy for example (the field I'm published in) anyone can submit a paper, no need for any registration, and high level work can be done be anyone - whilst I was doing my PhD an undergraduate doing a final year project stumbled across an interesting find, and got published in a major journal. My own work was published with me as first author well before I wrote up my PhD (I did all the writing and submitting, my supervisor was on the paper only as a scientific collaborator), and most researchers are working on their own projects and writing first author papers on a regular basis in their first or second postdoc position. My former student published two papers whilst still studying for his MPhil under me, and has only just finished his PhD, but has 5 first author papers under his belt, one of which was highlighted by MNRAS as an important paper and won him an award from the Chinese government. So whilst it's true that most people work in groups and collaborate on papers, it's not true that you have to have a senior academic submit the journal, or even have an affiliation to a registered institute. At least, not in my field.

Also, in Astronomy and Astrophysics there's usually only one referee for a paper, and the formats aren't all that exacting.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Craig B

You mean stony ground, surely. See Mark 4:5. According to the Bing dictionary, "fallow" means "left unseeded to recover natural fertility". I'm by no means sure that this recovered natural fertility of mind is what you are referring to.

You're right. I thought it was a bible verse but I see I have remembered it wrong.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The Ten Commandments as taught by the Catholic Church do not have anything about idolatry in them.

Surely its more than just the catholics that proclaim the authenticity of the shroud?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Surely its more than just the catholics that proclaim the authenticity of the shroud?

More fool them. Calvin was a great opponent of relics: one of his few merits.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by wollery

Excellent post, but I have a couple of minor quibbles. I don't know how things work in chemistry, but I'll assume that your description is accurate. It doesn't work the same way in other fields. In Astronomy for example (the field I'm published in) anyone can submit a paper, no need for any registration, and high level work can be done be anyone - whilst I was doing my PhD an undergraduate doing a final year project stumbled across an interesting find, and got published in a major journal. My own work was published with me as first author well before I wrote up my PhD (I did all the writing and submitting, my supervisor was on the paper only as a scientific collaborator), and most researchers are working on their own projects and writing first author papers on a regular basis in their first or second postdoc position. My former student published two papers whilst still studying for his MPhil under me, and has only just finished his PhD, but has 5 first author papers under his belt, one of which was highlighted by MNRAS as an important paper and won him an award from the Chinese government. So whilst it's true that most people work in groups and collaborate on papers, it's not true that you have to have a senior academic submit the journal, or even have an affiliation to a registered institute. At least, not in my field.

Also, in Astronomy and Astrophysics there's usually only one referee for a paper, and the formats aren't all that exacting.

You may well be right on that. And that may indeed be how Ray Rogers was able to get his paper published in Spectrochim Acta., despite the fact that he was no longer a practicing scientist. Tbh, I'm not sure what sort of scientist or what level he was at any stage

Tbh, at the time I never really took a great deal of notice about the precise rules that different journals applied in accepting authors at different stages of their studies. Really, in scribbling the above I was just trying to give Jabba a general overview of what actually happens when scientists publish their research in peer reviewed research journals.

So the above scribble contains several other generalisations apart from the one you have just pointed out. Eg, although afaik it is true that most research is done in universities, there are of course a number of very famous non-univ. labs which have published a great deal of important work, eg Bell Labs in the USA, as well as Los Alamos where Ray Rogers was apparently working.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The Ten Commandments as taught by the Catholic Church do not have anything about idolatry in them.

There's a good article here on the differences between Jewish, Catholic/Lutheren and mainstream Protestant versions of the commandments.

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by wollery

In Astronomy for example (the field I'm published in) anyone can submit a paper, no need for any registration, and high level work can be done be anyone -

Totally off topic and only tangentially related to your comment, but I think it's really cool that astronomy is an area where amateurs (such as hobbiests) still can, and often do, make real contributions to science.

-- Roger

[IanS]

Originally Posted by tsig

Good post but I fear you are casting your seeds on fallow ground.

Yep, I realise that's highly likely.

That's partly why I've been trying to pin Jabba down to dealing conclusively with the C14, ie to restrict the number of diversionary avenues he can take the conversation down.

And of course I also realise that he may never come to the point on how he can genuinely explain the C14.

But you never know, he might surprise us by admitting that the C14 cannot be dismissed at present, and that he has to accept that as the likely date of the shroud.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by jadebox

Totally off topic and only tangentially related to your comment, but I think it's really cool that astronomy is an area where amateurs (such as hobbiests) still can, and often do, make real contributions to science.

-- Roger

Yep, agreed (very good observation).

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by IanS

Yep, I realise that's highly likely.

That's partly why I've been trying to pin Jabba down to dealing conclusively with the C14, ie to restrict the number of diversionary avenues he can take the conversation down.

And of course I also realise that he may never come to the point on how he can genuinely explain the C14.

But you never know, he might surprise us by admitting that the C14 cannot be dismissed at present, and that he has to accept that as the likely date of the shroud.

But that would just mean that it was even more miraculous that Jesus' image shows up on a piece of cloth woven 1300 years after the crucifiction! He is a very mysterious chap you know, this Jesus bloke.

[jhunter1163]

I'd just add my voice to the chorus saying "why not retest it?" If the original sample was taken from a medieval repair, then let's have a retest. This is a rare case when there's an obvious avenue to settle the dispute once and for all; why not take it? Because the Shroud would be shown to be a hoax, that's why not.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

There's a good article here on the differences between Jewish, Catholic/Lutheren and mainstream Protestant versions of the commandments.

And those are NOT the ten commandments at all..... as I explain in this post

Originally Posted by Leumas

THESE ARE NOT the 10 commandments the ten commandments that are actually CALLED the TEN COMMANDMENTS in the actual biblical text and that are labeled accordingly by Moses and that are on the two tablets that end up in the ark which are a TOTALLY different set of commandments.

Here are the REAL ten commandments…..notice verse 28….. by the way….the phrase “ten commandments” is mentioned in the biblical text ONLY THREE times…. The one below and two times in Deuteronomy…. NONE of the times refers to the ten commandments that people think they are. (Exo 20.)

Exodus 34

Quote:

Quote:
1 The LORD said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain.”
[…]
10 Then the LORD said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.[a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

1. 15 “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
2. 17 “Do not make any idols.
3. 18 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
4. 19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
5. “No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
6. 21 “Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7. 22 “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.[b] 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
8. 25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.
9. 26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
10. “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Remember....some bibles have the habit of LABELING sections with a heading to make the section easy to find when one is browsing the bible.

So you will find the section in Exodus 20 labeled as the ten commandments.

HOWEVER...these labels are NOT part of the text of the Bible....they are MODERN LABELS inserted in some bibles for a quick scan reference.

The actual text of the Bible is what I am talking about....the WORDS OF GOD (supposedly).

The words "ten commandments" appear in the bible three times....Exodus 34:28, Deut 4:13, Deut 10:4.

Both Deut ones are talking about them only and do not list them.

Exodus 34:28 is where MOSES says "these are the ten commandments” and WRITES this on the two tablets. Read 34:28 CAREFULLY.

Even in the New Testament Jesus never says ten commandments. He does say “commandments” but he quotes some of them wrong (assuming Exo 20) and he does not list 10 anyway.

Notice Matthew 19…. First he says commandments (not ten) and the guy asks him WHICH. He then lists SIX and the last one is NOT in the Exo 20 list.

Quote:

{19:16} And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? {19:17} And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is,] God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. {19:18} He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, {19:19} Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Notice the same story in Mark 10….again the commandments are not ten but again 6 and one of them is not from Exo 20 which also actually contradicts Matthew 19:16 above

Quote:

{10:17} And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? {10:18} And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is,] God. {10:19} Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Notice Luke 18….he now only lists 5.

Quote:

{18:19}And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? None [is] good, save one, [that is,] God. {18:20} Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

You must also remember that Jesus NEVER says TEN commandments. Remember the words “TEN COMMANDMENTS” occurs in the bible only three times like I said above. One of them is EXPRESSLY used to LABEL the ten commandments as such and as the ones that went on the tablets.

It is understandable why people do not want to admit the REAL ten....read them and see how IMMORAL most of them are.


The first commandment Jesus mentions as the most important commandment and claims is the FIRST commandment given by god (Mat 22:34-40) is in Deuteronomy 6:5 and is not at all the FIRST of the commandments in Exo 20:2-17 as Jesus claims (nor the repeated ones in Deuteronomy 5:6-21). The second one is in fact in Leviticus 19:18 and not even in Exodus altogether.

So where did they get the idea that the 10 commandments are the ones in Exo 20:2-17 (or Deut 5:6-21) rather than the actual ones in Exo 34:14-28..... Augustine only knows.


If Jesus gave the impression that he prefers some commandments over others they were only 2 that are not listed in Exo 20 (nor Deut 5) and when he liked a few more they were only 5 out of the ones in Exo 20 and he NEVER named them the 10 commandments. Besides, Jesus said that ALLLL the laws are to be fulfilled to the last tittle (Mat 5:18). So why keep harping on about the 10.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by IanS

You may well be right on that. And that may indeed be how Ray Rogers was able to get his paper published in Spectrochim Acta., despite the fact that he was no longer a practicing scientist. Tbh, I'm not sure what sort of scientist or what level he was at any stage

Tbh, at the time I never really took a great deal of notice about the precise rules that different journals applied in accepting authors at different stages of their studies. Really, in scribbling the above I was just trying to give Jabba a general overview of what actually happens when scientists publish their research in peer reviewed research journals.

So the above scribble contains several other generalisations apart from the one you have just pointed out. Eg, although afaik it is true that most research is done in universities, there are of course a number of very famous non-univ. labs which have published a great deal of important work, eg Bell Labs in the USA, as well as Los Alamos where Ray Rogers was apparently working.

Again, that depends strongly on the field of research. Astronomy research institutes that aren't directly government funded or part of a university can be counted on the fingers of one snake. On the other hand, biochemical and pharmaceutical research have huge private sector involvement.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by wollery

Again, that depends strongly on the field of research. Astronomy research institutes that aren't directly government funded or part of a university can be counted on the fingers of one snake. On the other hand, biochemical and pharmaceutical research have huge private sector involvement.

Is that before the expulsion out of Eden or after?

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Leumas

Is that before the expulsion out of Eden or after?

I don't believe in fairy tales.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

I'd just add my voice to the chorus saying "why not retest it?" If the original sample was taken from a medieval repair, then let's have a retest. This is a rare case when there's an obvious avenue to settle the dispute once and for all; why not take it? Because the Shroud would be shown to be a hoax, that's why not.

The answer to that is the sample was definitely not cut from any repaired area of the shroud.

The only people who have suggested it may have been a repaired area are the Christian shroud groups who don’t want to accept the C14 dates.

But when the original sample was cut for the C14, the Vatican appointed a large team of specially selected observers to examine the shroud in detail to help determine that the sample was being cut from an area well away from any of the ancient repairs (all of which were apparently well known and very obvious to the eye). The staff present included not only numerous priests and religious scientific advisors to the Vatican, but also experts in ancient textile conservation, representatives of the Vatican’s favourite shroud group STURP, the heads of the selected radiocarbon labs, plus various other officials, as well as the whole process being filmed both on video and with still photography. They spent several hours examining the shroud in the most minute detail before agreeing which part of the cloth should be cut for the C14 samples … the area selected was, iirc, adjacent to the area where a previous sample had been cut some decade or more earlier for what is known as “the Raes Sample”.

Everyone present at the time agreed that the sample was definitely being cut from the main cloth of the shroud and not from anywhere near any patched area.

On top of which, afaik, in 2002 (14 years after the C14) the Vatican appointed it's own officials to remove the cloth backing from the shroud, and they took the opportunity to examine in detail from both sides of the shroud the area where the C14 sample had been taken, and they themselves concluded that the C14 sample was definitely not from any repaired area and was certainly part of the main body of the shroud.

Added to which, the area in which the C14 sample was cut, had previously been photographed many thousands of times! Including many hundreds if not several thousand photographs taken by high power photo-microscopy showing the finest details of every individual fibre ... and in none of the photos is there any sign of any repair at all ... not even a repair so miraculously perfect as to be completely invisible even under the highest power photo-microscopy.

Finally, when the C14 labs received their samples, they themselves began by examining their samples under high power microscopy (and took photos), and all three labs independently agreed that there was definitely no sign of any repair on any of the samples they had.

So that's the answer to whether or not the sample might have been mistakenly taken from a 16th century repair by so-called "Poor Clare Nuns" ... it was definitely not a repair.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by wollery

I don't believe in fairy tales.

What about snake tails?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by wollery

Again, that depends strongly on the field of research. Astronomy research institutes that aren't directly government funded or part of a university can be counted on the fingers of one snake. On the other hand, biochemical and pharmaceutical research have huge private sector involvement.

Sure, but in the context of the shroud, I don't think we are concerned with the sort of research and publications that occupy the field of medicine and drug development, are we?

So in the above I was just trying to address Jabba's complaint that he does not wish to recognise or accept a significant difference between publications from Shroud groups (and/or ordinary popular science magazines) versus. the sort of peer reviewed science journals which are within the fields of study that have been applied to the shroud ... eg, chemistry and radiocarbon research.

IOW, I'm just trying to focus Jabba's attention on why those Shroud Publications are not genuine science research, and why on the other hand the journals which relevant scientists typically publish in, are genuine science journals. Which here, I think, mostly means mainstream chemistry journals, the more generalised journal Nature, radiocarbon and similar applied physics journals, and in earlier studies on the shroud certain Journals in the field of Microscopy (though I am really not familiar with academic standards of any microscopy journals).

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by IanS

...So in the above I was just trying to address Jabba's complaint that he does not wish to recognise or accept a significant difference between publications from Shroud groups (and/or ordinary popular science magazines) versus. the sort of peer reviewed science journals which are within the fields of study that have been applied to the shroud ... eg, chemistry and radiocarbon research.

IOW, I'm just trying to focus Jabba's attention on why those Shroud Publications are not genuine science research, and why on the other hand the journals which relevant scientists typically publish in, are genuine science journals. Which here, I think, mostly means mainstream chemistry journals, the more generalised journal Nature, radiocarbon and similar applied physics journals, and in earlier studies on the shroud certain Journals in the field of Microscopy (though I am really not familiar with academic standards of any microscopy journals).

- But Ian, that isn’t what I'm saying – or, at least, that isn’t how I would say it.
- I’m claiming that there are many more peer reviewed articles in science journals (which are within the fields of study) that favor my side than there are that favor yours; and also, that my non-peer-reviewed articles are at least as credible as yours.
- I am currently trying to put my money where my mouth has been – I’m just slow.
--- Jabba

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I’m claiming that there are many more peer reviewed articles in science journals (which are within the fields of study) that favor my side than there are that favor yours;

Actually, that would not be surprising. Obviously, it is more likely that people will research if the shroud is old, than some will research that it is not. However, I doubt you can find scientific research that doccuments that is old, since the actual research has been very limited, and as we know, not in your favor.

After all, it is not the number of articles, but the results that count.

Quote:

and also, that my non-peer-reviewed articles are at least as credible as yours.

That will always be a subjective discussion.

Quote:

- I am currently trying to put my money where my mouth has been – I’m just slow.
--- Jabba

OK. Waiting.

Hans

[Jabba]

- Here's the beginning. http://shroud.com/78papers.htm
- Unfortunately, the address seems to include an unfortunate typo -- the "7" should probably be a "2" -- unless I'm missing something.
- Whatever, you guys still need to start giving me a list of your sources...

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Actually, that would not be surprising. Obviously, it is more likely that people will research if the shroud is old, than some will research that it is not. However, I doubt you can find scientific research that doccuments that is old, since the actual research has been very limited, and as we know, not in your favor...

Hans,
- You've gotta show me the sources by which you know that the research is not in my favor.
--- Jabba

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Jabba

-.
- Whatever, you guys still need to start giving me a list of your sources...

Uhh, no. It is your claim, so you provide evidence. Once you do that, we challenge your evidence. That is the way these things are done.

Hans

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But Ian, that isn’t what I'm saying – or, at least, that isn’t how I would say it.
- I’m claiming that there are many more peer reviewed articles in science journals (which are within the fields of study) that favor my side than there are that favor yours; and also, that my non-peer-reviewed articles are at least as credible as yours.
- I am currently trying to put my money where my mouth has been – I’m just slow.
--- Jabba

Jabba, how many times do you have to be asked to back up your claims by producing the peer reviewed science publications that you keep claiming?

For what must be at least the tenth time in this thread - if you think you have any genuine science research paper in which any independent scientist has ever published evidence showing the C14 dates to be in any doubt, then just post it.


Also - when you say " and also, that my non-peer-reviewed articles are at least as credible as yours " ... that is manifest nonsense and completely untrue, because for a start I have never posted or even mentioned any "non-peer-reviewed" articles ... in fact, you yourself asked me several pages back to list my sources and I replied to you very clearly saying that I only need to list one publication and that is the 1989 C14 paper published in Nature. And that is more than sufficient ... it is THE paper and THE issue that we are debating here.


Look, I really don't want to appear in any way unkind to you or bullying you in any sense at all. But you really must either produce the papers that you claim, or stop claiming you have them .

[pakeha]

Jabba wrote

Quote:

- I’m claiming that there are many more peer reviewed articles in science journals (which are within the fields of study) that favor my side than there are that favor yours; and also, that my non-peer-reviewed articles are at least as credible as yours.
- I am currently trying to put my money where my mouth has been – I’m just slow.

And again, I ask-
How is it you have a website on the subject yet have trouble marshalling your sources?

Originally Posted by IanS

The answer to that is the sample was definitely not cut from any repaired area of the shroud. ...(snipped for space)
Finally, when the C14 labs received their samples, they themselves began by examining their samples under high power microscopy (and took photos), and all three labs independently agreed that there was definitely no sign of any repair on any of the samples they had.

So that's the answer to whether or not the sample might have been mistakenly taken from a 16th century repair by so-called "Poor Clare Nuns" ... it was definitely not a repair.

My bolding.
How did the 'repair' meme come about when the Vatican itself took care to ensure there could be no question on the subject?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Hans,
- You've gotta show me the sources by which you know that the research is not in my favor.
--- Jabba

OK, as soon as you show me the sources that prove that invisible unicorns don't exist.

Seriously mate, it is your claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Hans

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba#391

...and also, that my non-peer-reviewed articles are at least as credible as yours.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

...That will always be a subjective discussion.

Hans,
- To a large extent, yeah. But, if I can actually make some good points using the research referred to in such articles, I suspect that you guys will recognize them. And while you guys don't know me from Adam, I promise that I will be trying to do the same in regard to the research in the non-peer-reviewed articles to which you guys refer me.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

OK, as soon as you show me the sources that prove that invisible unicorns don't exist.

Seriously mate, it is your claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Hans

Hans,
- I really don't get that. Both sides here are making claims. I don't see why the burden of proof should rest on my side.
- I don't think that we should treat this like a "criminal" trial (in the U.S. at least) where the burden of proof rests on the Prosecution. Sure seems to me that this should be treated like a "civil" trial where neither side is expected to prove anything -- each side is simply trying to present the preponderance of evidence.
--- Jabba