The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #781

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to otseng in post #778]
There is no size in our dimensions that relate to another dimension. So "vanishingly small" is not relevant when discussing other dimensions. It's either other dimensions exist or not. To claim that other dimensions is also natural is a special pleading fallacy. I might as well say heaven is in another dimension and is therefore also natural.
But there is in certain versions of string theory. It is called compactifying or "curling up":

https://physics.aps.org/story/v1/st7

"But compactifying this eleven-dimensional theory down to four dimensions has been challenging. Compactifying means “curling up” extra dimensions of the theory to a very small size. To curl up two dimensions, for example, take a doughnut (a two-dimensional surface), and begin by squeezing it down to a circular wire with an unobservably small cross section. Then squeeze the wire loop down to a point. Without a probe sensitive enough to detect the “shrunken” dimensions, the wire appears one dimensional, and the point appears to have zero dimensions. In M theory that scale, which is of order 10−33 cm, is well beyond the reach of present-day probes, so after compactifying seven dimensions it seems as though we live in only four dimensions."

Mathematical trickery maybe, but 10^-33 cm as a dimension I would call vanishingly small. Heaven is presumably claimed to exist in some other dimension, but does not fall out of any mathematical analysis or model. It is a special "place" or ?? invented for eternal life to take place (presumably only for humans?).
The issue is not if other universes exist, but cosmologists have proposed an explanation that is non-natural. Other universes is not equivalent to understanding more about our own universe. There is no causal relationship between universes. Each are independent of each other and they even might have totally different laws of physics.
Right ... these various multiverse hypotheses propose completely different universes, parallel universes, and things like that. But they would not be non-natural if they actually do exist. We don't know that yet, however, so these potential extra universes are just manifestations of some mathematical/physics modeling where they fall out. If they don't exist then the models fail. If they do exist then they would be natural, "real" universes. Until this is known, they are hypothesized natural things, that have yet to be shown to actually exist.

My argument is that various hypotheses like multiverses and string theory are not describing non-natural things, but natural things that would result from the descriptions if they turn out to be correct. If quarks are made of some tiny vibrating "string" (whatever the mathematical construct is for that), then it is another description for a natural thing that is different from how the standard model of physics describes it now.
Yes, they are attempts to explain our world, but they need to resort to things outside our natural world to do it.
I would argue that the model predicted "things" are natural ... if they exist. The problem is that an idea that falls out of a mathematical model is just that until some observation or experiment shows that it is valid.
By saying "with their goal being a natural explanation at the end of the day" strongly implies these explanations are not natural.
I would use the word hypothetical rather than non-natural. If observations and experiment show that a model prediction is actually correct, then it becomes a real, natural thing. If there are other universes (and how we'd ever determine that I have no idea), then presumably it would be a real thing and not a supernatural (not natural thing).
Again, there is special pleading involved here if you say all these explanations are natural. How would you define "natural"?
I would define natural as something that can be shown to exist in the world we can experience. It could be matter, or energy, photons, EM fields, etc., but something we can identify, observe, measure, infer from measurements or observations, etc. So a multiverse at the moment is a hypothesis with no evidence as of yet to confirm whether it is real (natural, exists), or just a wild idea. String theory is just a mathematical model at the moment, and the tiny vibrating "strings" that make up everything in that theory may or may not actually exist. If they do, they would be natural, and if they don't it is just another failed idea that will die away.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #782

Post by Diogenes »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:27 am Mathematical trickery maybe, but 10^-33 cm as a dimension I would call vanishingly small. Heaven is presumably claimed to exist in some other dimension, but does not fall out of any mathematical analysis or model. It is a special "place" or ?? invented for eternal life to take place (presumably only for humans?).
....

My argument is that various hypotheses like multiverses and string theory are not describing non-natural things, but natural things that would result from the descriptions if they turn out to be correct. If quarks are made of some tiny vibrating "string" (whatever the mathematical construct is for that), then it is another description for a natural thing that is different from how the standard model of physics describes it now.
Thanks much for this. You've articulated what I was trying to say, but you did it much more clearly. Thanks!

This brings us back to the point of this subtopic, "The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally."

The problem I have with Christian apologetics in general, and taking Genesis literally in particular, is that it is the exact opposite of science. The scientific approach does not care if it discovers God. It has, or should have, no bias about that. It is a search for truth. If God can be found in the natural world then "He" stops being supernatural. If God is part of the natural world evidence of 'His' existence may be found in these theoretical explorations of the "vanishingly small" dimensions or in fields like string theory.

Scientists would like nothing more than to find evidence of God. I personally hope there is some kind of presence or force that is personal and wants to benefit us. I see no evidence of this, but I understand the yearning for such a God. But the idea of this God being anything remotely like the volatile, anthropomorphic and frankly absurd god of the Old Testament seems ridiculous.

The Christian theist is the opposite of a scientist. The theist knows the end result he wants to find; he thinks he knows the truth and only looks for evidence to support that false 'knowledge.' It is that biased search that I believe is debilitating. Such an overreaching bias knocks one's truth finding apparatus out of whack.

An example is the Shroud of Turin. The believer feels so strongly that this fabric must be the original covering of Jesus' body from 2000 years ago, that any and all evidence that runs contra must be rejected. This leads to science itself being rejected. I don't intend this in any way to be mean or mocking. I just think it is sad to see good and gifted people willfully blind themselves. If God is there we will find 'Him' by searching for truth. But we cannot find truth by searching for a particular, preconceived god. To discover either truth or God we must be open to what is.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #783

Post by The Barbarian »

For whatever reason people might ascribe, humans are wired to seek a higher being. There are certainly evolutionary and personal benefits to such a trait:

Current Directions in Psychological Science
Volume 27 Issue 4, August 2018
Belief in God: Why People Believe, and Why They Don’t
Abstract
Belief in a god or gods is a central feature in the lives of billions of people and a topic of perennial interest within psychology. However, research over the past half decade has achieved a new level of understanding regarding both the ultimate and proximate causes of belief in God. Ultimate causes—the evolutionary influences on a trait—shed light on the adaptive value of belief in God and the reasons why a tendency toward this belief exists in humans. Proximate causes—the immediate influences on the expression of a trait—explain variation and changes in belief. We review this research and discuss remaining barriers to a fuller understanding of belief in God.


So it would be, if it was merely an adaptive trait or if a loving Creator make us inclined to seek Him. "You pays your money and you makes your choice" I believe Martin Gardner once said that he believed because it made him happier and better to believe. Which sounds more like agnosticism to me, but Gardner was clearly on to something about it.

My personal choice:

From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)


From:
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE

And yes, just my belief. Not judging anyone else's beliefs.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #784

Post by Diogenes »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #783]
I like this and agree with this summary:
They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.


One of my favorite lecture series is The Power of Myth, Bill Moyers interviewing Joseph Campbell, about 'The Hero's Journey' and 'The Hero with a 1000 Faces.' For me, I like recognizing that these are myths; they can be helpful guides, but what I am most attracted to is the idea of living without myths. To just accept life as it is without any overriding system of belief to organize it or serve as a palliative. I suppose it is a kind of bare honesty that attracts me. But along with this is a fascination with the human mind, particularly the unconscious. My own aphorism, variously phrased is The human unconscious is so brilliant and profound we mistake it for God.

The fantastic dreams we have gives us a tiny glimpse into the wonders there.

___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #785

Post by otseng »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:27 am
Again, there is special pleading involved here if you say all these explanations are natural. How would you define "natural"?
I would define natural as something that can be shown to exist in the world we can experience. It could be matter, or energy, photons, EM fields, etc., but something we can identify, observe, measure, infer from measurements or observations, etc. So a multiverse at the moment is a hypothesis with no evidence as of yet to confirm whether it is real (natural, exists), or just a wild idea. String theory is just a mathematical model at the moment, and the tiny vibrating "strings" that make up everything in that theory may or may not actually exist. If they do, they would be natural, and if they don't it is just another failed idea that will die away.
Is there any way to "identify, observe, measure" other universes or other dimensions? As for inference, I do not agree that is a way to determine if something is natural. There are many things we can infer, but that does not mean they are natural.
I would use the word hypothetical rather than non-natural. If observations and experiment show that a model prediction is actually correct, then it becomes a real, natural thing.
They are both - hypothetical and non-natural. They are separate and distinct concepts. Things can be hypothetical and also be natural.

How can one do an observation and experimentation to demonstrate other universes exist? Or even strings exist?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #786

Post by otseng »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:39 am For whatever reason people might ascribe, humans are wired to seek a higher being. There are certainly evolutionary and personal benefits to such a trait:
As far I know, no other animals have evolved to seek a higher being. So, interestingly we humans have "evolved" to believe in supernatural higher beings when only naturalistic processes have guided our evolution.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #787

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:36 pm The Christian theist is the opposite of a scientist.
This reveals a lack of knowledge of the history of science. Christian theists dominated the scientific revolution and were key players in the rise of Western science. So, it is erroneous to claim a Christian theist is the opposite of a scientist. Even now, we have Christian theists who are leading scientists.
An example is the Shroud of Turin. The believer feels so strongly that this fabric must be the original covering of Jesus' body from 2000 years ago, that any and all evidence that runs contra must be rejected. This leads to science itself being rejected. I don't intend this in any way to be mean or mocking. I just think it is sad to see good and gifted people willfully blind themselves.
Well, if I'm blinded, then it should be easy to argue against it. So, why are you not willing to participate in the debate?

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #788

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:39 pm
Is there any way to "identify, observe, measure" other universes or other dimensions? As for inference, I do not agree that is a way to determine if something is natural. There are many things we can infer, but that does not mean they are natural.

One might as well say "Is there any way to "identify, observe, measure" things that don't exist?
These other universes or dimensions are wholly speculative if we can't detect them by any of the methods DrNoGods mentions. I doubt we can properly "infer" things that are not natural. But we can infer something that we have not as yet detected. IOW, there is a difference from things as yet undetected and things undetectable. But without evidence we can't tell the difference.

I have no issue with the quest for what is, at the moment, seemingly undetectable. The problem I have is with the steadfast refusal to accept evidence because it does not line up with our preconceptions or dogmatic beliefs. A good example is the exasperatingly long and frivolous, maddeningly detailed excuses and whack-a-mole theories that keep popping up to 'explain' away the evidence the fabric of the Shroud of Turin is centuries younger than it needs to be, to be authentic.
This dogged refusal to accept facts unless they line up with pre-established beliefs wears the cloak of intellectual dishonesty.
Criticisms of the test results
Medieval repairs

Although the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself is unquestioned, criticisms have been raised regarding the choice of the sample taken for testing, with suggestions that the sample may represent a medieval repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.[39][40][41][42] It is hypothesised that the sampled area was a medieval repair which was conducted by "invisible reweaving". Since the C14 dating, at least four articles have been published in scholarly sources contending that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole shroud.[3][42][43]

These included an article by American chemist Raymond Rogers, Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), who was involved in work with the Shroud since the STURP project began in 1978. Rogers took 32 documented adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles during the STURP process in 1978.[3] He received 14 yarn segments from Luigi Gonella (from the Department of Physics, at the Polytechnic University of Turin) on 14 October 1979, which Gonella told him were from the Raes sample. On 12 December 2003, Rogers received samples of both warp and weft threads that Luigi Gonella claimed to have taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. The actual provenance of these threads is uncertain, as Gonella was not authorized to take or retain genuine shroud material,[44] but Gonella told Rogers that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.[3]

Raymond Rogers stated in a 2005 article that he performed chemical analyses on these undocumented threads, and compared them to the undocumented Raes threads as well as the samples he had kept from his STURP work. He stated that his analysis showed: "The radiocarbon sample contains both a gum/dye/mordant coating and cotton fibers. The main part of the shroud does not contain these materials."[3] He speculated that these products may have been used by medieval weavers to match the colour of the original weave when performing repairs and backing the shroud for additional protection. Based on this comparison Rogers concluded that the undocumented threads received from Gonella did not match the main body of the shroud, and that in his opinion: "The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken."[45]

As part of the testing process in 1988, Derbyshire laboratory in the UK assisted the Oxford University radiocarbon acceleration unit by identifying foreign material removed from the samples before they were processed.[46] Edward Hall of the Oxford team noticed two or three "minute" fibers which looked "out of place",[46] and those "minute" fibers were identified as cotton by Peter South (textile expert of the Derbyshire laboratory) who said: "It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past, or simply became bound in when the linen fabric was woven. It may not have taken us long to identify the strange material, but it was unique amongst the many and varied jobs we undertake.” [46]

The official report of the dating process, written by the people who performed the sampling, states that the sample "came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."[1]

Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is an expert in the restoration of textiles, who headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She has rejected the theory of the "invisible reweaving", pointing out that it would be technically impossible to perform such a repair without leaving traces, and that she found no such traces in her study of the shroud.[47][48]

Harry E. Gove helped to invent radiocarbon dating and was closely involved in setting up the shroud dating project. He also attended the actual dating process at the University of Arizona. Gove has written (in the respected scientific journal Radiocarbon) that: "Another argument has been made that the part of the shroud from which the sample was cut had possibly become worn and threadbare from countless handlings and had been subjected to medieval textile restoration. If so, the restoration would have had to be done with such incredible virtuosity as to render it microscopically indistinguishable from the real thing. Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely. It seems very convincing that what was measured in the laboratories was genuine cloth from the shroud after it had been subjected to rigorous cleaning procedures. Probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again."[7]

In 2010, statisticians Marco Riani and Anthony C. Atkinson wrote in a scientific paper that the statistical analysis of the raw dates obtained from the three laboratories for the radiocarbon test suggests the presence of contamination in some of the samples. They conclude that: "The effect is not large over the sampled region; … our estimate of the change is about two centuries."[49]

In December 2010, Timothy Jull, a member of the original 1988 radiocarbon-dating team and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon, coauthored an article in that journal with Rachel A. Freer-Waters. They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample that was left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in 1988 for the carbon-dating exercise, and were assisted by the director of the Gloria F. Ross Center for Tapestry Studies. They viewed the fragment using a low magnification (~30×) stereomicroscope, as well as under high magnification (320×) viewed through both transmitted light and polarized light, and then with epifluorescence microscopy. They found "only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers" and no evidence that the samples actually used for measurements in the C14 dating processes were dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material.[50]

In March 2013, Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua, conducted a battery of experiments on various threads that he believes were cut from the shroud during the 1988 carbon-14 dating, and concluded that they dated from 300 BC to 400 AD, potentially placing the Shroud within the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth.[51][52][53][54][55][56] Because of the manner in which Fanti obtained the shroud fibers, many are dubious about his findings. The shroud’s official custodian, Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia of Turin, told Vatican Insider: "As there is no degree of safety on the authenticity of the materials on which these experiments were carried out [on] the shroud cloth, the shroud's custodians cannot recognize any serious value to the results of these alleged experiments."[57][58] Barrie Schwortz, a member of the original STURP investigation team, commented on Fanti’s theory: "But it would be more convincing if the basic research had first been presented in a professional, peer-reviewed journal. If you’re using old techniques in new ways, then you need to submit your approach to other scientists."[57]
Contrasting evidence

Raymond Rogers [3] argued in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta that the presence of vanillin differed markedly between the unprovenanced threads he was looking at, which contained 37% of the original vanillin, while the body of the shroud contained 0% of the original vanillin. He stated that: "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years".[3]

It has been stated that Roger’s vanillin-dating process is untested, and the validity thereof is suspect, as the deterioration of vanillin is heavily influenced by the temperature of its environment – heat strips away vanillin rapidly, and the shroud has been subjected to temperatures high enough to melt silver and scorch the cloth.[44]
Contamination by bacteria

Pictorial evidence dating from c. 1690 and 1842 indicates that the corner used for the dating and several similar evenly spaced areas along one edge of the cloth were handled each time the cloth was displayed, the traditional method being for it to be held suspended by a row of five bishops. Others contend that repeated handling of this kind greatly increased the likelihood of contamination by bacteria and bacterial residue compared to the newly discovered archaeological specimens for which carbon-14 dating was developed. Bacteria and associated residue (bacteria by-products and dead bacteria) carry additional carbon-14 that would skew the radiocarbon date toward the present.

Rodger Sparks, a radiocarbon expert from New Zealand, had countered that an error of thirteen centuries stemming from bacterial contamination in the Middle Ages would have required a layer approximately doubling the sample weight.[59] Because such material could be easily detected, fibers from the shroud were examined at the National Science Foundation Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry examination failed to detect any form of bioplastic polymer on fibers from either non-image or image areas of the shroud. Additionally, laser-microprobe Raman analysis at Instruments SA, Inc. in Metuchen, New Jersey, also failed to detect any bioplastic polymer on shroud fibers.

Harry Gove once hypothesised that a "bioplastic" bacterial contamination, which was unknown during the 1988 testing, could have rendered the tests inaccurate. He has however also acknowledged that the samples had been carefully cleaned with strong chemicals before testing.[60] He noted that different cleaning procedures were employed by and within the three laboratories, and that even if some slight contamination remained, about two thirds of the sample would need to consist of modern material to swing the result away from a 1st Century date to a Medieval date. He inspected the Arizona sample material before it was cleaned, and determined that no such gross amount of contamination was present even before the cleaning commenced.[7]
Contamination by reactive carbon

Others have suggested that the silver of the molten reliquary and the water used to douse the flames may have catalysed the airborne carbon into the cloth.[61] The Russian Dmitri Kouznetsov, an archaeological biologist and chemist, claimed in 1994 to have managed to experimentally reproduce this purported enrichment of the cloth in ancient weaves, and published numerous articles on the subject between 1994 and 1996.[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] Kouznetsov's results could not be replicated, and no actual experiments have been able to validate this theory, so far.[70] Gian Marco Rinaldi and others proved that Kouznetsov never performed the experiments described in his papers, citing non-existent fonts and sources, including the museums from which he claimed to have obtained the samples of ancient weaves on which he performed the experiments.[71][72][73][67] Kouznetsov was arrested in 1997 on American soil under allegations of accepting bribes by magazine editors to produce manufactured evidence and false reports.[74]

Jull, Donahue and Damon of the NSF Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometer Facility at the University of Arizona attempted to replicate the Kouznetsov experiment, and could find no evidence for the gross changes in age proposed by Kouznetsov et al. They concluded that the proposed carbon-enriching heat treatments were not capable of producing the claimed changes in the measured radiocarbon age of the linen, that the attacks by Kouznetsov et al. on the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the shroud "in general are unsubstantiated and incorrect," and that the "other aspects of the experiment are unverifiable and irreproducible."[75][76]
Contamination by smoke

In 2008 John Jackson of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado proposed a new hypothesis – namely the possibility of more recent enrichment if carbon monoxide were to slowly interact with a fabric so as to deposit its enriched carbon into the fabric, interpenetrating into the fibrils that make up the cloth. Jackson proposed to test if this were actually possible.[77] Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, took the theory seriously and agreed to collaborate with Jackson in testing a series of linen samples that could determine if the case for the Shroud's authenticity should be re-opened. Before conducting the tests, he told the BBC that "With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the Shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence."[78] Ramsey stressed that he would be surprised if the results of the 1988 tests were shown to be far out – especially "a thousand years wrong" – but he insisted that he was keeping an open mind.[79]

The results of the tests were to form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud which was to be broadcast on BBC2. The producer of the 2008 documentary, David Rolfe, suggested that the quantity of carbon-14 found on the weave may have been significantly affected by the weather, the conservation methods employed throughout the centuries,[80] as well as the volatile carbon generated by the fire that damaged the shroud while in Savoy custody at Chambéry. Other similar theories include that candle smoke (rich in carbon dioxide) and the volatile carbon molecules produced during the two fires may have altered the carbon content of the cloth, rendering carbon dating unreliable as a dating tool.[81][82]

In March 2008 Ramsey reported back on the testing that: "So far the linen samples have been subjected to normal conditions (but with very high concentrations of carbon monoxide). These initial tests show no significant reaction – even though the sensitivity of the measurements is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the age by less than a single year. This is to be expected and essentially confirms why this sort of contamination has not been considered a serious issue before." He noted that carbon monoxide does not undergo significant reactions with linen which could result in an incorporation of a significant number of CO molecules into the cellulose structure. He also added that there is as yet no direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.[77]

In 2011, Ramsey commented that in general "there are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."[83]
Incorrect calculations

In 1994, J. A. Christen applied a strong statistical test to the radiocarbon data and concluded that the given age for the shroud is, from a statistical point of view, correct.[84]

In recent years several statistical analyses have been conducted on the radiocarbon dating data, attempting to draw some conclusions about the reliability of the C14 dating from studying the data rather than studying the shroud itself. They have all concluded that the data shows a lack of homogeneity, which might be due to unidentified abnormalities in the fabric tested, or else might be due to differences in the pre-testing cleaning processes used by the different laboratories. The most recent analysis concludes that the stated date range needs to be adjusted by up to 88 years in order to properly meet the requirement of "95% confidence". Specifically:

A 2013 paper by Riani et al stated that "The twelve results from the 1988 radio carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin show surprising heterogeneity." They also stated that "Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared."[85]
A 2019 paper by Casabianca et al stated that: "A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered." They also stated that: "Our statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out." They went on to conclude that: "The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. … Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth."[86]
In a 2020 paper by Bryan Walsh & Larry Schwalbe, the authors also note the "statistical heterogeneity of the Shroud data", and conclude that this might possibly have been caused by "some inherent variation was present in the carbon isotopic composition of the Shroud sample itself", or perhaps that "some difference in residual contamination may have occurred as a result of differences in the individual laboratories’ cleaning procedures." They also conclude that "If the Zurich and Tucson data were displaced upward by 88 [radio-carbon years] as shown in the figure all of the results would agree within the uncertainty observed. Indeed, if the magnitude of the “adjustment” were as small as ~10 [radio-carbon years], the χ2 analysis would confirm a statistical homogeneity assuming the uncertainties in the data did not change."[87]

Phillip Ball, a former editor of the science journal Nature, wrote in 2019 that "Nothing published so far on the shroud, including this paper, offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong – but apparently it was not definitive either."[88]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... st_results
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #789

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:01 pm These other universes or dimensions are wholly speculative if we can't detect them by any of the methods DrNoGods mentions. I doubt we can properly "infer" things that are not natural. But we can infer something that we have not as yet detected. IOW, there is a difference from things as yet undetected and things undetectable. But without evidence we can't tell the difference.

I have no issue with the quest for what is, at the moment, seemingly undetectable.
Then these would be non-natural explanations.
The problem I have is with the steadfast refusal to accept evidence because it does not line up with our preconceptions or dogmatic beliefs.
The charge goes both ways. Why does nobody offer any valid counter-evidence with references on debating the TS? Why do only people resort to fallacious arguments and mockery? If it's easy to prove it's a fake, then why all the irrational responses and repetitive ranting by skeptics?
A good example is the exasperatingly long and frivolous, maddeningly detailed excuses and whack-a-mole theories that keep popping up to 'explain' away the evidence the fabric of the Shroud of Turin is centuries younger than it needs to be, to be authentic. This dogged refusal to accept facts unless they line up with pre-established beliefs wears the cloak of intellectual dishonesty.
A lot to respond to there, but let's discuss those in the other thread. This thread is about Genesis. Join in the debate at How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #790

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:25 pm The charge goes both ways. Why does nobody offer any valid counter-evidence with references on debating the TS? Why do only people resort to fallacious arguments and mockery? If it's easy to prove it's a fake, then why all the irrational responses and repetitive ranting by skeptics?
I don't know what you are talking about. After ten years or so of wrangling about how to take the samples and how many of which labs to send them to, the Carbon 14 dating put the shroud at circa 1300 CE. End of story. It's a fake, even without going into the data that indicates it's a drawing, not an impression.
Then, since no serious scholar doubted the reliability of the Carbon dating methods, they came up with all these new theories about Medieval repairs, an untested vanillin-dating process; Contamination by bacteria, reactive carbon, and smoke. Then they attacked the calculations. This was all done because the believers could not accept the truth, it is a fake. No fallacious arguments or mockery needed. Why are you so set on trying to authenticate this relic, despite the evidence? It's not like your faith is based upon a piece of cloth.

I have no interest in going down another rabbit hole akin to the refusal to accept the fact of evolution; another set of facts upon which your faith need not depend.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

Post Reply