| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Hutton" |
| Date: |
21 Feb 2005 09:58:15 AM |
| Object: |
Shroud of Turin -- again. |
Just goes to show you, it's impossible to nail jelly to a tree.
(in case you haven't heard, now the claim is that the piece of cloth
that was tested and found to be of medieval origin, was a patch added in
medieval times....)
JH #1696
.
|
|
| User: "There She Was Just A-Clayton Down The Street..." |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
21 Feb 2005 05:17:56 PM |
|
|
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvd0e7$21e$2@nntp.msstate.edu...
Just goes to show you, it's impossible to nail jelly to a tree.
(in case you haven't heard, now the claim is that the piece of cloth
that was tested and found to be of medieval origin, was a patch added in
medieval times....)
Don't worry....it's already been totally discredited!
.
|
|
|
| User: "There She Was Just A-Clayton Down The Street..." |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
22 Feb 2005 06:49:43 PM |
|
|
"There She Was Just A-Clayton Down The Street..."
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote in message
news:421a6b8a$0$31617$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvd0e7$21e$2@nntp.msstate.edu...
Just goes to show you, it's impossible to nail jelly to a tree.
(in case you haven't heard, now the claim is that the piece of cloth
that was tested and found to be of medieval origin, was a patch added in
medieval times....)
Don't worry....it's already been totally discredited!
http://tinyurl.com/4yytz
The Shroud of Turin is back! After keeping a low profile for a few
years, new experiments on the age of the shroud were all over the
papers and websites last week. But while the coverage was heavily
pro-shroud, a closer look tells a different story.
The occasion was the publication of a report in the chemistry journal
Thermochimica Acta by a scientist named Ray Rogers.
I recognized the name immediately. Rogers has been a shroud devotee
for decades. Once his name is on a report, you can be sure it will
argue that the shroud is the real thing.
Making such a claim has been much more difficult since 1988, when
radiocarbon dating showed that the linen of the shroud is only a
little more than 700 years old. Not old enough to have wrapped
Christ's body, but just right to coincide with the first historically
documented appearance of the shroud in France.
Rogers doesn't buy all that. He begins by embracing an argument put
forth by others that the few threads that were carbon dated were taken
from the wrong place - a patch of cloth that had been used to repair
damage to the shroud in the 1500s. No wonder it dated more recently
than 2,000 years ago.
Having established to his own satisfaction that the carbon dates are
incorrect, Rogers then apparently invents his own dating technique,
and comes up with a range of ages that happily bracket Christ's
lifetime.
He noticed that fibres from the shroud proper (of which he apparently has a
small collection gathered over the years) contain no vanillin, a breakdown
product of the flax from which the linen was made.
But the patch area (he has some of those threads, too) had plenty of
vanillin. Rogers then decided the amount of vanillin was like the sand in an
hourglass: The less there is, the more time has passed. If that rate could
be calibrated, he'd have a new method of dating.
But wait a minute. He's got things completely backwards. He is supposed to
be testing the shroud to see how old it is, not deciding in advance that it
is older and then concluding that vanillin might be a good clock to prove
it. This is bad science. The only way this could be taken seriously would be
if Rogers had tested a wide variety of cloths, decided that dwindling
amounts of vanillin served as a clock, then - and only then - tested the
shroud.
But that's not all. The methods he used to measure vanillin are suspect.
Even though Rogers notes at the end of the paper that all the work was done
"in the author's home laboratory," a lack of sophisticated equipment wasn't
the problem - the choice of equipment was.
Clint Chapple, a biochemist at Purdue University, points out that it was odd
that Rogers used a powerfully precise technique, pyrolysis mass
spectrometry, to assess the carbohydrates in the cloth, but didn't choose to
apply that to the vanillin. Odd because there are scientific papers
testifying to the incredible accuracy of this technique as applied to
vanillin.
"I've published using this method and have this instrument in my own lab.
The method would have easily revealed the presence (or absence) of
degradation products like vanillin had the author been seriously interested
in testing his hypothesis," Chapple says.
Instead, Rogers used a staining technique (if vanillin is there you get a
colour change). But this is a qualitative, not a quantitative test.
Malcolm Campbell, a botanist at the University of Toronto, told me that "in
biological sciences, a scientist would be hard-pressed to get their paper
published if they ever attempted to quantify vanillin on the basis of this
staining technique."
Staining is a rough guide to the presence of vanillin and cannot detect very
small amounts.
Campbell and Chapple have identified other flaws in the paper (primary among
them a lack of controls and replication) but the ones I've pointed out
should have been enough to deter the editors of Thermochimica Acta from
publishing it.
Why didn't they? Maybe they were unfamiliar with the chemistry of linen and
its breakdown products; maybe they have a soft spot in their heart for the
shroud. Who knows?
The incident just underlines the fact that the Shroud of Turin will never go
away, and believers will try anything, including arguments masquerading as
science, to prove its authenticity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
----
Jay Ingram hosts Daily Planet on the Discovery Channel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
21 Feb 2005 05:21:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:17:56 +1000, "There She Was Just A-Clayton Down The
Street..." <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvd0e7$21e$2@nntp.msstate.edu...
Just goes to show you, it's impossible to nail jelly to a tree.
(in case you haven't heard, now the claim is that the piece of cloth
that was tested and found to be of medieval origin, was a patch added in
medieval times....)
Don't worry....it's already been totally discredited!
I'm not - it hasn't.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shiv" |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
21 Feb 2005 08:13:30 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:17:56 +1000, "There She Was Just A-Clayton Down The
Street..." <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvd0e7$21e$2@nntp.msstate.edu...
Just goes to show you, it's impossible to nail jelly to a tree.
(in case you haven't heard, now the claim is that the piece of cloth
that was tested and found to be of medieval origin, was a patch added in
medieval times....)
Don't worry....it's already been totally discredited!
I'm not - it hasn't.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
I believe he meant "discredited to anyone that can outwit a hamster."
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
22 Feb 2005 05:17:25 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:13:30 -0600, Shiv <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote:
I believe he meant "discredited to anyone that can outwit a hamster."
He can't.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
22 Feb 2005 08:34:53 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:13:30 -0600, Shiv <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote:
I believe he meant "discredited to anyone that can outwit a hamster."
He can't.
HTFWYK?
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
If God had meant us to believe in him, he wouldn't have given us brains.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
22 Feb 2005 05:26:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:34:53 +0000, Secular Fundamentalist
<moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote:
I believe he meant "discredited to anyone that can outwit a hamster."
He can't.
HTFWYK?
I've seen his work, and yours which is no better.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmy B." |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
23 Feb 2005 07:21:05 PM |
|
|
Shiv wrote:
duke wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:17:56 +1000, "There She Was Just A-Clayton Down
The
Street..." <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvd0e7$21e$2@nntp.msstate.edu...
Just goes to show you, it's impossible to nail jelly to a tree.
(in case you haven't heard, now the claim is that the piece of cloth
that was tested and found to be of medieval origin, was a patch
added in
medieval times....)
Don't worry....it's already been totally discredited!
I'm not - it hasn't.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." *****
I believe he meant "discredited to anyone that can outwit a hamster."
Why insult hamsters? What did they ever do to you? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
24 Feb 2005 07:41:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:21:05 GMT, "Jimmy B." <jimpppe@NOSPAMearthlink.net>
wrote:
Shiv wrote:
duke wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:17:56 +1000, "There She Was Just A-Clayton Down
The
Street..." <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvd0e7$21e$2@nntp.msstate.edu...
Just goes to show you, it's impossible to nail jelly to a tree.
(in case you haven't heard, now the claim is that the piece of cloth
that was tested and found to be of medieval origin, was a patch
added in
medieval times....)
Don't worry....it's already been totally discredited!
I'm not - it hasn't.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." *****
I believe he meant "discredited to anyone that can outwit a hamster."
Why insult hamsters? What did they ever do to you? :-)
They ran off with his duct tape.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Shroud of Turin -- again. |
24 Feb 2005 08:22:41 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:21:05 -0600, Jimmy B. wrote
(in article <5_9Td.9772$x53.5198@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
Shiv wrote:
duke wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:17:56 +1000, "There She Was Just A-Clayton Down
The
Street..." <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvd0e7$21e$2@nntp.msstate.edu...
Just goes to show you, it's impossible to nail jelly to a tree.
(in case you haven't heard, now the claim is that the piece of cloth
that was tested and found to be of medieval origin, was a patch
added in
medieval times....)
Don't worry....it's already been totally discredited!
I'm not - it hasn't.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." *****
I believe he meant "discredited to anyone that can outwit a hamster."
Why insult hamsters? What did they ever do to you? :-)
Obviously Shiv made a typo, he meant to type "hammer," "discredited to anyone
that can outwit a hammer." See, it makes perfect sense this way.
I've known many who could not outwit a hammer.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³It's all very simple : you believe in a god, I don't. Theists first invented
the concept of god or gods, and the sceptical people said : "Huh?". It's been
downhill from there. ;-)³ - Olrik
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
