TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 8:02 am
We already did as I recall over the failure of C14 to date coal deposits. I put the explanation and as i recall, it ended there. I see point in revisiting the matter. C14 is a useful tool biut it is not a dogma nor a faithclaim.
Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying C14 is not dogma and should not be considered authoritative and the final arbiter?
Kindly do not equate science with Faithclaims. And you did not not equate faithclaims and scientific hypotheses - I did, because you did not or would not recognise your equivocation.
You admit here that I do not equate science with faith claims. And then you ask that I "kindly do not equate science with faithclaims"? Like you said, it is you
that is making that statement. So, I should be asking you to kindly stop making the claim that I am making any such claim.
Dark matter and energy are hypothetical and not demonstrated but are scientific, as you could have found if you had googled it as readily as you searched out Shroud apologetics to post.
Let me repeat my questions:
If they (dark energy and dark matter) are not detectable, how can they be considered natural?
In the case of the multiverse, if it's not even part of our universe, how can that be considered natural also? Or in the case of extra dimensions with string theory, how can that also be considered natural if it's beyond our 3 dimensions?
So, even if we cannot detect something does not rule out its existence?
Or if you only want to answer one question, answer this with a simple agree or disagree:
All I'm saying now is if no natural explanations are viable, then a non-natural explanation can be entertained. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
You're missing the point about the wrist - it may be just visible below the one on top in which case, x - ray effect or not, the fingers of the hand beneath are too long. I do not get how a shroud laid across the body could distort the fingers that much. Explain, please.
I also presented papers on fingers being too long (as well as other anatomical distortions) in post 1651
Also I asked what you thought about the wrist below vanishing. that surely argues against an effect from within which rules out an x -ray - like effect.
That is also a clue to how the image was formed. What we see is after a certain distance from the cloth, no body image is seen on the cloth. We see this also with no ears on the shroud. If it was an artist, would he get everything else done so well that he'd miss one of the most obvious parts of the head?
I think you were wise to let my comment slide after you presumed to lecture me on how science works, when you were equating religious faithclaims with science -based hypotheses.
You just admitted above that I have made no such statement. So, you'll need to cease from the continual use of the false attribution fallacy.
"The Logical Fallacy of False Attribution occurs when a quote or opinion is attributed to a source that is not the true source in order to lend false credibility, false authority, or ad hominem attack."
https://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallac ... ution.html
I don't care about McCrone as the results are not verified. McCrone's oxide is dismissed as an effect of the overall washing of the cloth before use, but this and other claims that handily rule out anything but 'it is real' require validation - as does the C14 date.
Washing is one theory to account for the iron oxide and there are others as well. But I think the most telling is even McCrone does not state there is sufficient iron oxide to account for all the paint required for the image and blood.
But we will need to get into more details of C14 and McCrone because these are the top two arguments against the authenticity of the shroud. Though you might not accept these, the vast majority of skeptics bring these two up, so I will have to address them.
Are you still claiming it was wrapped around the body and bundled up? The image refutes that.
Actually I believe the image confirms
it. The difference is how one theorizes the image was formed.
Explain here for the benefit of the browsers whether you accept a flat image or not and if not why it is apparently a flat image.
It is a flat image in that we observe it as an image on the surface of a flat shroud. But, the shroud was draped/wrapped around a 3 dimensional body. The shroud image is not simply an artist looking with his eyes at a crucified man and then rendering what he saw. The image on the shroud used some projection technique to put 3-D information onto a curved 2-D surface.
And yes, it is a photo like image even if a 3d -image can be produced from it. It is not in itself 3d. This being agreed, discussing the 3d image is irrelevant. That is is a photonegative - like image and not a painted portrait is not denied.
I'll post soon about the fact that the shroud also includes 3-D information.
So it is futile asking me for explanations. I can only point to evidence of what it is not, rather than what it is.
As well as for all the scientists that have been studying the shroud. But, there is one theory that is the best I've seen so far that I'll present later.
The 'disciples took the body' is so far ahead of 'investigation' that the authorities will take fifty years to catch up.
This is not likely either. But we'll debate that later.
I am open to finding that indeed it is a shroud of an actual crucified man.
This is the most logical inference from all the data so far.
Yes, - the awarding yourself of the win. No, it is not the most logical conclusion. It is the most outwardly convincing and persuasive conclusion, but so is the gospels.
It's like the quote from Dawkins, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
The shroud looks convincingly like it's the shroud of an actual crucified man, but it's not.
What more you got?
We'll have many more pages of evidence that I'll be presenting.
it didn't occur to you that a closed circle of shroud apologists would look like one team rather than three with perhaps different findings? I hate to play the Bias card or accuse anyone of conspiracies, but some things look dodgy.
If you have counter-evidence, please present them. If there's a conspiracy, show the evidence of a conspiracy.