Pharyngula

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | October 6, 2009 10:03 AM

"Analysis has proved that the bread and wine contain characteristics of real human flesh and blood. Both belonged to the same blood type, AB. "

Jesus wasn't a universal donor? Pfft.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 6, 2009 10:20 AM

I read somewhere that when the shroud first appeared, the bishops didn't want to have anything to do with it because they thought it was such an obvious fake (and so the scammers had to make do with less money by selling it to a smaller church). I wish I could remember where I heard that; perhaps I'll need to do some research.

Posted by: Drosera | October 6, 2009 10:32 AM

Apparently the other miracle was real:

The Relics were scientifically analyzed in 1997 for the 750th anniversary celebrations of the Miracle and proven to be genuine and of a supernatural origin.

Scientifically proven to be of supernatural origin, so it must be true.

Er, wait a minute...

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 6, 2009 10:38 AM

This comes as a great relief to me since I've always wanted to know how it was done. Now we have a very simple method for making such a shroud. Luigi, the Shroud recreator, appears to have a long history with James Randi.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 6, 2009 10:45 AM

CoreyS, the shroud dating results stand as fact until evidence demonstrates a different date. This would be done by the church dating the main piece of cloth. Until this is done, the results stand, and the shroud is a fraud. Inane arguments like yours are meaningless to science.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 6, 2009 10:49 AM

If the dating had matched the hoped for date. No complaints would have been made.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | October 6, 2009 10:54 AM

Calling all entrepreneurs!

If the Shroud of Turin can be reproduced, it can be mass-produced. :)

Posted by: raven | October 6, 2009 11:02 AM

Corey S.:

Actually, the dating of the shroud was improperly done. They used the mixture of interwoven fabric with the original, which contaminated the results. The dating was not wrong, but the sample was.

Source??? Sounds like an excuse (lie) that some xian made up after the fact.

They do that a lot. In fact they do that all the time.

Posted by: SEF | October 6, 2009 11:05 AM

Rather like Fermat's last theorem - it's very unlikely his method of proof (assuming he was correct in his margin assertion!) would have been the same as the recent modern version.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 6, 2009 11:08 AM

-If the Shroud of Turin can be reproduced, it can be mass-produced. :)-

I want the "Curtains of Turin". Only with puppies. Blood soaked statue representations of mythical demigods doesn't do it for me.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 6, 2009 11:10 AM

First off... many curses to you, moveable type!

Secondly, I've long been personally confused as to why people would be so moved and awed by supposed "miracles". Frankly more often then not, even if they were true "miracles", they do more to show that god is capricious and unstable at best, and evil, malicious and malevolent at worst... either way, I fins myself unimpressed by even the claims of these "miracles", much like the recent example of the woman with ALS who was "cured" by the water at Lourdes... I wrote about that recently.

Posted by: Victor | October 6, 2009 11:12 AM

That miracles page doesn't even contain one piece of information about the Jesus Grilled Cheese Sandwich. What, do things have to be old to be a miracle? I call foul!

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 6, 2009 11:21 AM

As a follow-up to my last comment (#3) where I had read somewhere that the bishops at the time the shroud first appeared knew it was fake, I found the reference. It was Joe Nickell:

The Shroud first showed up around 1355 to 1357 under suspicious circumstances and was being used as part of a faith-healing scam. We know this from a later Bishop's report dated 1389 to Pope Clement. The Bishop says that people were being hired to pretend they were sick, and when the Shroud was revealed to them, they would pretend they were cured. So as he put it "they cunningly robbed the pockets of the unsuspecting," and eventually the matter was hushed up, and eventually the Shroud surfaced again. The Bishop tried to put an end to it; people wouldn't listen to him. He appeals to Pope Clement; Pope Clement hears the matter and adjudicates it; he determines the Shroud is just a representation and not the True Shroud. The fact of the matter is that the Bishop's predecessor had actually found the artist and he had confessed. Now, they don't give his name, and of course the pro-Shroud people like to just dismiss this as hearsay, but the fact of its artistry is supported, as we will see, on many fronts. Not only by the lack of history up to that time [the mid-13th century].

Posted by: black-wolf72 | October 6, 2009 11:22 AM

[Now after trying to sign in a number of times and failing for the last half hour or so, being denied server access or some other mysterious load of horseshit, I finally got logged in. Here's the comment I wrote and wisely left open in my notepad:]

Funny how the Church continues to make a lot of money off the Shroud directly and indirectly, by exhibition and marketing, all the while declining to make a clear and unambiguous statement. Nothing but greed. Whoever believes the Church has any interest in 'spiritual wellbeing' is a fool. To think that a forgery created for monetary gain could be a "powerful reminder of Christ's passion" (Reuters article), you really must be borderline retarded. That the Church expects believers to swallow that does more to demonstrate how they regard their believers's mental capacity than anything else.

I'm amazed how many believers claim to be Roman Catholic and equally openly assert that neither the word of the Pope or things like miracles, Saints, pilgrimages count for much in their worldview. I wonder how it feels to go through life in such a confused state of mind, all the things held important drifting in and out of a haze of muddled pseudo-thinking.

Posted by: sqlrob | October 6, 2009 11:29 AM

Indeed, it's presumably a forgery of some kind or other, yet the mere fact that someone could do it using medieval methods doesn't exactly show that it was done in the way that the modern person claims that it was.

It would be nice to know exactly how it was made, but that's not entirely the point.

We're forcing them into another God of the Gaps situation. "It wasn't possible then, so goddidit" has been eliminated as an argument.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 6, 2009 11:31 AM

Skeptic Joe Nickell's response (Claims of Invalid “Shroud” Radiocarbon Date Cut from Whole Cloth) to Ray Rodgers' paper claiming erroneous dating of the Shroud (Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin) is very informative:

On the tape-lifted STURP samples (affixed to microscope slides), McCrone found a variety of substances (including mold spores and wax spatters). Major pigments were red ocher (in “body” areas) and vermilion (together with red ocher in the “blood” areas), contained in a collagen tempera binder. He also found the madder,2 orpiment, azurite, and yellow ocher pigments, as well as paint fragments, including ultramarine and titanium white—together suggestive of the shroud’s origin in “an artist’s studio” (McCrone 1996, 85, 135).
Astonishingly—and with serious implications to the spirit of peer review—Rogers omits any mention of McCrone’s findings from his report while insisting elsewhere, “let’s be honest about our science” (Rogers 2004).

there are a lot of questions to be answered, like, well, how some of the anatomical and accidental details on the shroud are quite good, perhaps better than medieval artists would be likely to reproduce. -Glen Davidson

Posted by: black-wolf72 | October 6, 2009 11:48 AM

Sven #22

These people have to be the most gullible rubes in history.

Umm, no. These are the people who profit from continuing the scam.
An aside: the Church has 'investigated' and confirmed the 'miracle' in the middle ages. As apparently there is no information on the alleged investigation of 1997 apart from the people who sell the miracle to the public, I guess it wouldn't even pass a Church-led investigation of today, let alone an independent scientific one. But of course that doesn't stop them from sending their pilgrims there and making more money off them. The same people also sell a number of other miracles at their place, about a crucifix on which Jesus came alive. Surely, once they realized they could get away with one scam, they invented a few more, attracting Fatima pilgrims.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 6, 2009 11:58 AM

I'm no expert in carbon dating but if it was interwoven with cloth of two different eras (1300 CE and 0CE ish) would you not get two peaks in your analysis?

Posted by: amphiox | October 6, 2009 12:05 PM

"I believe that the shroud is not authentic, but it needs to be properly tested to confirm it."

I believe you have the methodology reversed. The claim of authenticity is what requires confirmation. Non-authenticity is the appropriate baseline assumption, or null hypothesis.

If the carbon dating evidence is disregarded then the historical record is the remaining evidence we should rely on. The proper starting hypothesis should be that the shroud was created close to the time of its first documented appearance, which is the middle ages (whether you choose to think of it as fraud or artwork is immaterial). And we do not postulate any other ranges of dates until positive evidence arises to suggest otherwise.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 6, 2009 12:15 PM

These are the people who profit from continuing the scam.

Of course, you're right.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | October 6, 2009 12:18 PM

I think it is a done and dusted tale...

"The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith"

One can be fully assured that if the RCC disown the premise..or at least distance themselves like so then one can be damned to hell sure that they know full well that that tacky little rag is a complete and utter fraud...if there was but one single niggling doubt the story projected would be entirely different...oh yes indeed so!

The RCC are pragmatic in the hysterical knicker wetting by the faithful over it, besides tis good revenue, and has been for quite a while.

That is one reason why they are not busting a ecclesiastical gut to nail the debate once and for all, the furore created in '88' was rather a fortunate 'godsend' for the religious, typically the only time it really mattered to get a unequivocal result on a date was scuppered by the choice of sample used, one wonders, cos one does in this case, why the sample extractor was retricted to that corner.

"Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated, "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric "

There were other clues that the sample chosen was dodgy...sources available on net for that statement...

example...http://www.innoval.com/C14/

That the Vatican closely monitored the process can not be overlooked...they indeed directed the protocol and the exact area of sample removal...no surprise then that it turns out to be questionable...or is that just cynicism?

Maybe...maybe not!

Posted by: sasqwatch | October 6, 2009 12:43 PM

Looks to me like Dr. Luigi Garlaschelli nailed it. heh... heh... heh...

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 6, 2009 1:20 PM

Flea @ # 30: "... Eventually, the liquefied blood turned into five pellets of various sizes and shapes. When the local archbishop later weighed the pellets, it was discovered that one nugget weighed the same as all five together, two as much as any three, and the smallest as much as the largest...".

To my innumerate mind, that signifies that each of the pellets must have had a weight of zero - or possibly of infinity. Determining which could provide the ultimate answer to the does-god-exist debate - and the fact that the pellets did not immediately form the nucleus of a supermassive black hole offers a clue...

Posted by: MikeyM | October 6, 2009 1:31 PM

About two decades ago, the Skeptical Inquirer ran an article by Joe Nickel that showed him recreating the Shroud image by molding wet cloth around a bust of Bing Crosby (!) and rubbing it with pigment.

BTW, isn't it odd that the folks who insist that the Shroud is genuine are never bothered by the fact that the description of Jesus's burial in the Gospels eliminate the possibility that he was covered in a way that would make the image on the Shroud possible?

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | October 6, 2009 1:36 PM

BTW, isn't it odd that the folks who insist that the Shroud is genuine are never bothered by the fact that the description of Jesus's burial in the Gospels eliminate the possibility that he was covered in a way that would make the image on the Shroud possible?

But it's a miracle! ;)

Posted by: Jason A. | October 6, 2009 1:41 PM

Note wording. The author of the article:

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake.

Words of the actual scientist, two paragraphs below:

We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud

Posted by: Unaspammer | October 6, 2009 1:44 PM

aratina,

Thanks for posting that link. I was under the impression that Rodgers was a skeptic regarding the Shroud. That no longer appears to be the case.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 6, 2009 1:51 PM

Will this prevent Dan Brown from writing yet another novel?

Now that might be something that could truly be classed as miraculous.

Posted by: Porco Dio | October 6, 2009 1:55 PM

The article states that "his arms crossed on his chest."

This is not true - the arms are extended so that the hands cover his family jewels... something I have always considered to be a blatant proof of forgery.

It seems obvious to me that a corpse wrapped in a shroud would have it's arms straight by its side and not covering its medieval sensibilities...

For one, and I'm no physician, I don't think that flaccid limbs would stay in that position or that a mortician would care to place them that way...

Anyone care to poke my logic with a pointy stick?

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 6, 2009 2:12 PM

The Other Ian,

No problem. I spelled his name wrong above. It's "Rogers". I'm a little puzzled as to why Rogers joined with people he had previously called the "lunatic fringe" in claiming the Shroud sample was contaminated and in ignoring McCrone's findings because I can't find evidence that Rogers had a religious bias. Shroud of Turin fanatic Barrie Schwortz has more information about Rogers: http://www.shroud.com/late05.htm#rogers

Posted by: eddie | October 6, 2009 2:27 PM

Re hje @52 - We can but hope.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | October 6, 2009 2:52 PM

#46

". My only objection is when people make statements such as "it's been dated to the 13th century"

well certainly a sample from the Turin shroud has been dated to that era...and it is extremely unlikely the radiometric dating procedures were erroneous?
Let us assume that they are not...then that implies a date has been gained...whether that covers the age of the whole shroud in general is another matter of course.

"The evidence that the sample was contaminated is strong enough that to go on claiming the Shroud has been reliably dated is intellectually dishonest."

But certainly not the sample tested!
If the sample were indeed... as has been suggested by investigators since the radiocarbon dating research...contaminated by repair work using a technique colloquially known as French weaving, it does not prove that that date is false!
It is true that a question remains about the un-repaired portion of the shroud.

"As I understand it, the point that was made was not just that the different labs got varying results"

Nope not really, all samples from seven labs (I think the research group consisted of) returned results within statistical appropriateness of the tests.

"The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr)."

That quote was from the British Museum...they were commenting on the published results...only later was doubt raised about the sample being representative of the shroud as a whole!

"The Church also had an interest in not damaging the Shroud. The sample was taken from the corner as a compromise to minimize the damage."

Possibly, but it is passing strange that there seems to be a deliberate attitude somewhere in this sorry tale to deliberately discredit the findings...

The failure to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry in that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole as reported by Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Was indeed a massive oversight by extremely experienced scientists.

Unless of course they were not allowed to insure a representative sample was gathered...which seems to be the gist of the matter.

It seems it is well within the bounds to postulate that a sample that registered a middle ages origin and then challenged as being...different...from the rest of the shroud somehow...maintains the 'mystery' of the shroud.
The Church must be delighted...income is secured for a relatively longer period and the bunnies that hop to the 'Turin beat' get to bounce another day.

Bit convenient is that...It is not expected that the Church would allow another test any time soon, that is a fact methinks, they gambled once(or was it I wonder)it seems to have paid off whatever, and they are on their toes with the winnings!

Posted by: sasqwatch | October 6, 2009 3:50 PM

That's gross. You really need to dry your taint, too.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 6, 2009 4:36 PM

What should I charge for viewings?

Um, looks like a penis, only smaller.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 6, 2009 4:58 PM

Rowan, Nerd of Redhead OM addressed that in #35, I think. If the fire was in 1500 and the Shroud was created in 1100, the date would show up as 1300 if it had original and new material in it.

Posted by: woodsong | October 6, 2009 5:05 PM

I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar on microscopic analysis given by Dr. McCrone at Cornell in which he described his work with the shroud. I remember him describing how he compared actual blood drips (his own) on paper with the spatters on the shroud, and showing a series of spots, scaled from one drop in a place to 10 drops, and how they differed from the marks on the shroud.

The drops on the shroud are solid circles of bright red.

His blood dripped on paper produced (nearly) empty circles of dull red, which with time would have faded to dark brown. Multiple drops gave a slightly darker ring, but did not significantly broaden the colored area.

Combine that with the presence of paint pigments and the lack of any actual bodily fluids, and he was certain that he had proven the shroud a forgery. Of course, the Church didn't want him to publish that...

I found that talk very interesting!

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 6, 2009 5:11 PM

Shroud of Turin is not a miracle

Posted by: RagingBullwinkle | October 6, 2009 5:13 PM

I have my ShamWow of Turin on order. If it's not the miracle soaker-upper it's claimed to be, I'm going to be pissed.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 6, 2009 5:28 PM

The first few chapters are a frankly hilarious take on the Medieval relic trade.

At one time there were four Sacred Spears (used to stab Jesus while on the cross) and three foreskins from Jesus's circumcision at various places in medieval Europe and Byzantium. It's been estimated that if all the splinters of the Holy Cross were assembled into one piece, the cross would have been five meters long, a meter thick, and with a three meter crosspiece also a meter thick.

Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | October 6, 2009 5:42 PM

@#64: gotta love this Reuters headline:

A new taint on the Shroud of Turin?

That's funny, I thought it was supposed to be Jesus' face...

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 6, 2009 6:51 PM

The error has been recognized by the team that did the sampling in 1988. - Corey S.

[citation needed] The link you gave shows no such thing, and I don't believe it to be the case. Sorry Corey S., but you've simply fallen for shroud-believers' apologetics. AFAIK, the only peer-reviewed study to question the dating is the 2005 Thermochemica Acta article by Rogers - who, as I said before, offers no evidence apart from his bare word that the fibres he worked on came from the sample - and had no legitimate way of getting hold of such fibres. Most tellingly, the Church has not suggested a retest - they know damn well the result would be the same.

Posted by: bastion of sass | October 6, 2009 8:30 PM

woodsong wrote:

The drops on the shroud are solid circles of bright red.
His blood dripped on paper produced (nearly) empty circles of dull red, which with time would have faded to dark brown. Multiple drops gave a slightly darker ring, but did not significantly broaden the colored area.

Yeah, but I assume that Dr. McCrone has human blood. You can't compare that to divine blood! Who knows what God's/God son's blood looks like.

Posted by: Alistair Coleman | October 7, 2009 7:30 AM

Wake up, sheeple, it's OBVIOUS!

This J. Christ chap clearly found himself bored one day working for the family furniture-making business. And what better way to relieve workplace boredom than to photocopy yourself and sent the pics to your mates? One of whom OBVIOUSLY lived in Turin.

Q E D !

Posted by: Marcm2k | October 7, 2009 6:04 PM

This one kills me. Imagine all the people who absolutely swore that this was a relic of Christ, people who were 'healed', people who saw the light and were blessed. All those who vouchsafed it's existence only to have it proven to be full of crap.

If people can be fooled one way, then why not the next?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 6:18 PM

Shroud of Turin shower curtains.

It's not the Shroud, but I have one of these in my bathroom, just because I love tacky religious kitsch.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 7, 2009 7:59 PM

It's not the Shroud, but I have one of these in my bathroom, just because I love tacky religious kitsch.

Posted by: paul fauvet | October 8, 2009 1:30 AM

Mikey is quite right. The Gospel of St John, which has the most detailed description of Christ's burial, makes it quite clear that the Shroud is a fake.

Joseph of Arimathea supposedly had the body cleaned up. It was washed in expensive aromatics (myrhh and aloes). So any shroud should have 1. No blood, and 2. Aloe and myrhh DNA.

In other words, you can believe in the Bible or in the Shroud of Turin, but not both.

As already mentioned, the local Bishop knew it was a fraud and said so, even warning the Pope.

Just as telling is the question of provenance. Anybody in the art world knows that if a masterpiece supposedly painted by a 16th century master suddenly turns up in the 21st century, the first thing to ask is - where has it been for the past 500 years?

And if there is no satisfactory answer, it will be written off as a fake, a beautiful, clever fake, perhaps, but still a fake.

The Shroud of Turin has no known history prior to the 14th century. There is no mention of such a relic in the later Roman empire, in the Byzantine empire, in the early Middle Ages. Nothing - just a gap of 1,300 years.

The carbon 14 dating clinches the case - but the other arguments were conclusive anyway.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 13, 2009 9:18 AM

Shroudie, what in Shroud's name was that all about?

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 13, 2009 9:59 AM

Shroudie,
You are a moron. One of the claims of your fellow-morons has been that the image on the fraud of Turin cannot be produced even by modern technology, let alone that of the 14th century. Garlaschelli has disproved this. No-one has ever claimed that human beings cannot be produced by means of sexual reproduction.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 13, 2009 10:05 AM

You don’t have to believe it is real. You don’t have to believe it is fake. But be scientific about it. As it stands now there is no proof either way. - Shroudie

Liar. Carbon-14 dating has proved that it is a medieval fake.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 13, 2009 10:13 AM

Since Darwin, evolutionary biologists have believed that humans evolved along with other animals and plants from a common ancestor. But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain why some people smoke cherry flavored pipe tobacco since it offers no evolutionary advantage.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Posted by: Shroudie | October 13, 2009 10:32 AM

So far I am a moron and a liar. Yeh, that wins arguments effectively.

In a peer-reviewed article the late Raymond Rogers (1927-2005), a retired chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, with a long and distinguished scientific career. He had been honored as a Fellow of the prestigious Los Alamos lab, part of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). In his home state of New Mexico, Rogers had been a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education where he fought hard to avoid any teaching of Creationism or ID in the schools. For several years, he served on the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board as a civilian with the rank equivalency of Lieutenant General. He had published over fifty peer-reviewed scientific papers in science journals. He was also a member of the skeptical organization, New Mexicans for Science and Reason (NMSR). He subscribed to this partial description of the organization:
We are skeptical . . . of those groups who misuse and misrepresent science. We oppose the use of fabrication, flawed logic, distortion of facts, and pseudoscientific propaganda by any and all groups who twist science to suit their own ends, whether they are creationists, advocates of intelligent design, proponents of the idea that aliens crashed at Roswell, extreme academic cultural critics who deny objective reality, or promoters of unproved claims . . .
In 1978, Rogers, in part because he was not religious, had been selected as one of many scientists chosen to go to Turin and study the shroud up and close. From his work on the shroud, Rogers’ only substantive conclusion was that the shroud images were not painted. He did not then offer an opinion on its authenticity. Following the carbon dating, he accepted the conclusion that the shroud was medieval. He had complete respect for the technology and the quality of work done by the carbon dating labs. In 2005, Philip Ball, a former editor of Nature, wrote in Nature Online that Rogers “has a history of respectable work on the shroud dating back to 1978, when he became director of chemical research for the international Shroud of Turin Research Project.”
Kim Johnson of NMSR wrote in an obituary for Rogers on the organization’s web site:
He was a Fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and tried to be an excellent, open minded scientist in all things. In particular, he had no pony in the "Shroud of Turin" horserace, but was terribly interested in making sure that neither proponents nor skeptics let their scientific judgment be clouded by their preconceptions. He just wanted to date and analyze the thing. He died on March 8th from cancer. He was a good man, and tried his best to do honest science.
Though Rogers had stopped doing research on the shroud, he had maintained a passing interest, in part because no one had figured out how the images had been made. However, he was annoyed by claims from those who thought they could explain away the carbon dating with pseudoscientific or non-scientific explanations. They were, in his words, the “lunatic fringe” of shroud research.
One hypothetical suggestion, seemingly off the wall, was gaining traction, particularly on the Internet. Two researchers, Sue Benford and Joe Marino, were suggesting that the sample used in the carbon dating was significantly not part of the shroud but instead part of a medieval repair, a section of the cloth mended using a technique known as invisible reweaving. Rogers thought this was ludicrous, just so much more lunatic fringe thinking. He thought that he could prove they were wrong. He had in his possession some small thread samples taken from the shroud at a spot adjacent to where the carbon dating sample had been snipped away. It would be a simple matter to show that there was no evidence of mending.
As it turned out, Benford and Marino seemed to be onto something. In 2002, after considerable research, Rogers, along with Anna Arnoldi, a chemistry professor at the University of Milan, wrote a paper that strongly suggested that Benford and Marino were right. More work needed to be done, however, and Rogers continued to study the matter with material that had been saved from the actual cuttings from which the carbon dating samples were taken. In January, 2005, following a lengthy peer-review process, Thermochimica Acta, an international journal from Elsevier, published a paper by Rogers entitled, “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin.” In it Rogers wrote:
The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud.

This wasn’t religious opinion. In fact, it wasn’t that much of a scientific opinion of the sort that newspapers and television like. If Rogers could have proven that the shroud was the genuine article or at least that it came from the time of Christ, this would have been exciting news. As it was he was only saying that for all practical purposes the 1988 carbon dating was meaningless. Nonetheless, this was pure science. It was also a personal admission that he had been wrong in thinking that the carbon dating was the end of the story; that it was fake. In a letter to the editors of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, in response to criticisms leveled at him by Joe Nickell, one of the magazine’s non-scientist columnists who had raised questions about Rogers’ scientific competence, Rogers wrote:
I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. . . . Joe [Nickell] did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others.

Since then, several scientists have confirmed his findings and Christopher Ramsey, the head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Dating lab agrees that there is reason to doubt the validity of the 1988 tests. For one thing, it is now known that the Oxford team saw evidence of mending, documented it, and failed to report it.

“Science,” wrote the biochemist, Émile Duclaux (1840-1904) over a century ago, “[is] a series of judgments, revised without ceasing.” The history of scientific endeavor bears that out.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 13, 2009 10:38 AM

Shroudie, #103: So far I am a moron and a liar. Yeh, that wins arguments effectively.

To be more accurate, it means that argument was over before it began.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 10:48 AM

Shroudie, the Rogers paper is worthless. He is a believer who was trying to leave room for the shroud to be real. So he started with a conclusion and tried to create doubt. That is not science. Hence is paper is not considered scientific, even though he tried to use scientific principals, and is has been refuted by other folks. And in science, you can't just rely on one source. Multiple sources say the shroud is a fake. It is.

Posted by: Shroudie | October 13, 2009 11:23 AM

aratina cage:

I stand corrected. The radiocarbon sample was a mixture of old and new thread. The sample was not representative of the whole cloth. This was confirmed by John Brown at Georgia Tech and Bob Villarreal of Los Alamos, who had no religious convictions about the shroud. He didn't even know what it was, as he explains it.

The point is that the C14 tests need to be redone. I doubt the church will allow this to happen in the foreseeable future, which is too bad. As I stated earlier, I don't care what the results are, I just don't concur with overly easy interpretations. Given all the anomalies that exist in radiocarbon dating linen wrappings of Egyptian mummies, I doubt that results will be believed unless the work is performed with the best possible protocols: multiple samples, careful chemical characterization, comparative control samples, etc.; all things that were not done the first time around.

As for the red ochre. Fe(3+) or ferric and Fe(2+) ferrous ions are ubiquitous. Finding it on the Shroud is not surprising as it's carried by dust and dirt particles. The non-image and image portions of the shroud have a significant concentration of both types of iron in nearly equal amounts. As the iron concentration of the non-image portion equals the imaged portions, iron as pigment can be reasonably ruled out.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 11:41 AM

The point is that the C14 tests need to be redone. I doubt the church will allow this to happen in the foreseeable future, which is too bad.

As I stated earlier, I don't care what the results are,

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 13, 2009 12:04 PM

I found the link to Luigi's work, Shroud Reproduction. There is an English language PDF file that explains:

We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be artificially aged after the rubbing step (by heating the cloth in an oven) in such a way that, when the pigment is washed away, an image is obtained having the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. In particular, the image is a pseudo-negative, is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the topmost fibers of the cloth, has some 3D embedded properties and does not fluoresce. [...]
We believe that our attempts represent - more than a reproduction - an interesting addition to the ongoing debate on the origin of this maybe-not-so-impossible image.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 13, 2009 12:13 PM

His image is not superficial; it permeates the cloth.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 13, 2009 12:15 PM

I happen to think the shroud is genuine, the burial cloth of Jesus, but whether or not it is is immaterial.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 13, 2009 12:27 PM

I happen to think the shroud is genuine, the burial cloth of Jesus

Posted by: SEF | October 13, 2009 12:38 PM

Re the following:

His image is not superficial; it permeates the cloth.

... and the replies to it:

Another interpretation of that would be that it's holographic Jesus, ie every scrap of the cloth contains the whole image (but from a restricted view).

Posted by: SEF | October 14, 2009 7:43 AM

Because they know damn well the result would confirm that the shroud is a medieval fake, and it would become much less valuable.

More damningly, their alleged alternative religious way of knowing has never been able to reveal to them (in any consistency!) whether or not the shroud was a fake. No amount of praying or supposed miracles worked and they, typically, didn't even believe it would themselves - hence trying to investigate in a completely natural way right from the start. Eg probably involving questioning witnessed in the chain of ownership for the provenance and consulting art experts of the period before eventually getting to the artist whom Henri de Poitiers was saying had admitted to making it.

Why require testimony from an artist when a god could tell you? Wouldn't he have been crowing if his god had revealed to him straight off, without natural methods of questioning, who the artist was? So it wasn't just that he thought other people wouldn't believe god had told him the fake/not-fake answer. It was simply that no god had told him anything useful at all.

Posted by: mhugs | May 3, 2010 11:56 AM

PZ- you too may be deemed a Kook because it seems you are selectively choosing information to justify what you want to believe, just as you describe the religious "kooks" doing. There are solid, cogent scientific counters to the proof points you argue, assimilated by noted professors (not associated professors- might I add).

So for this particular "recreation" point you noted- sindonologist Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at the Padua University, reviewed "the image in discussion does not match the main fundamental properties of the Shroud image, in particular at thread and fiber level but also at macroscopic level".

Yes, those that choose to have faith are making a choice, just as many of them choose to believe in the authenticity of the shroud without a full understanding of all counter points. But you too are making a choice to not have faith, and I question if this choice is similarly soiling your objective look at all sides of the Shroud argument.

In the end, isn't religious faith simply making a choice to believe in something even though you recognize you do not have nor could ever grasp the totality of information regarding the complexities of the material & immaterial world? I would counter that religious faith is much more intellectually honest than scientific faith (and thus less Kooky). Sure, scientific findings may ultimately and sufficiently explain objects of a religious person's faith but until science can explain every aspect of all things, I guess we are all just livin' on faith. I guess its boils down to which side we choose to be on.

Posted by: mhugs | May 3, 2010 3:38 PM

immaterial=not consisting of matter, e.g. spiritual world.

Concerning my inane statement, let's use Christianity as case in point. There is extrabiblical evidence that Christ existed (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc.) . There is evidence that something happened which caused his terrified followers to all of a sudden become bold and travel all over Asia Minor proclaiming his word- with many ultimately giving their lives. There is evidence the world turned dark during the Crucifixion. The sheer energy and dedication of these followers to spread the word is evidence that these firsthand accounts who lived with him truly believed in him. There is evidence that faith in Christ changes lives.

Thus, this is faith With evidence. This is not equivalent to faith in flying pink unicorns but rather faith in something which evidence says indeed could be real. True this evidence isn't bulletproof as you/I were not there to witness it. Sure, there are potential inconsistencies with the various accounts but that in itself is not proof it did not happen. I could argue the evidence for Christ is stronger than many of the pillars of science that you place your faith on. The term 'Delusional fool' could apply to you just as easy as it could to Mother Teresa.

Thus we all take new evidence at hand and Choose what to do with it. None of us are truly objective as we all have preconceived paradigms. If I believe in Christ naturally I take the shroud, weight it against the evidence and even if I seek to be truly objective, my worldview will probably impact my ultimate choice on how I view the evidence. The exact same thing happens to you when you evaluate the evidence. Your seek out objections because your physical worldview says it cannot possibly be real.

In short- there is no difference in Christ faith vs. the faith you have in science. We both make a choice on what to believe. We both place faith in something because humanity cannot possibly grasp the uber truth of the universe due to the finite nature of the human mind. You are a delusional fool.

Posted by: Bobber | May 3, 2010 4:07 PM

There is extrabiblical evidence that Christ existed (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc.).

None of this evidence is first-hand. There is no non-Biblical contemporaneous primary source, be it witness testimony or other record.

There is evidence that something happened which caused his terrified followers to all of a sudden become bold and travel all over Asia Minor proclaiming his word- with many ultimately giving their lives.

Of course, no member of any modern cult has ever done that. [/snark]

There is evidence the world turned dark during the Crucifixion.

Citation, please.

The sheer energy and dedication of these followers to spread the word is evidence that these firsthand accounts who lived with him truly believed in him.

The Aztec priests will be relieved to learn that the zealousness with which they ripped the hearts out of the chests of other human beings will now be considered proof of the existence of their gods.

There is evidence that faith in Christ changes lives.

Jim Jones and Charles Manson are also likewise vindicated.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 3, 2010 4:41 PM

There is extrabiblical evidence that Christ existed (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc.) .

No, this is extrapolated conjecture and wishful thinking. Please look up "evidence".

There is evidence that something happened which caused his terrified followers to all of a sudden become bold and travel all over Asia Minor proclaiming his word- with many ultimately giving their lives.

This was a common method of information dissemination in this part of the world at that time. Nomadic tribes tell stories of their cultures... they spread... etc, etc... This is not evidence of Christ anymore than there is evidence of "Odysseus".. again... please look up the meaning of "evidence".

There is evidence the world turned dark during the Crucifixion.

This is purely made up.

The sheer energy and dedication of these followers to spread the word is evidence that these firsthand accounts who lived with him truly believed in him.

Have you ever seen the fervor and conviction that 100s of "UFO abductees" retell their tale?

So since it's told with "evergy and dedication" it must be true? Boy, you are an easy mark... no wonder you're such a fervent believer.

Again, what you have presented is examples of nomadic, illiterate goat herders and tribesman really believing the things they were told by other nomadic illiterate goat herders... it happens.

How do you think Mayan religion and culture spread? You think the early adopters of that religion were any less convinced of their experiences? So therefor their religion must also have been true?

Better head on up the pyramid to the sacrificial slab, bub...

Posted by: CJO | May 3, 2010 4:44 PM

There is extrabiblical evidence that Christ existed (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc.)

The so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus) is widely agreed upon among scholars to be a later interpolation into the text, in whole or in part. The fact is, Christian scribes' fingerprints are all over the thing, and so you can't appeal to what Josephus wrote, since we don't know what it was, or even if he wrote anything on the subject. Tacitus and Suetonius are reporting what Christians believed at the time that they wrote, long after the putative events and so their writings simply pass along a credulous gloss on the minimal Christian confession after the basic outline of the Synoptic narrative was well-established. Such credulity in the reporting of unsourced narratives is typical of ancient historians and it can't be adduced as primary evidence.

There is evidence the world turned dark during the Crucifixion.

Hahahahaha! So you're just a moron, then. Never mind.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 3, 2010 4:49 PM

You may believe all matter came into existence from nothing. Please explain this without a Creator.

Please explain the existence of a creator without a creator...

You also have a quite mis-informed view of what we "believe" regarding matter coming into existence.

Assuming that god, or any other creator, is the answer for things we don't yet have answers to without any shred of evidence is, well... infantile.

Agreed, I wasn't there to witness it, just as i wasn't there to witness the building of my beach house. I guess it could could have made itself via the wind, waves & driftwood. But logic and reason leads us to a more plausible explanation.

Ah, yes... excellent point...

So, does logic and reason leave you to believe your beach house was cobbled together by magical little elves that no-one can see in the middle of the night, stopping time to do so, so that it was not there one minute, and was the next?

So why apply similar logic to the rest of your world-view?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 3, 2010 4:51 PM

Mhugs, you presented no hard evidence, just a bunch of assertions and presuppositions. Hard evidence. Like the carbon dating from three univerisities around the world for the shroud that date to its first recorded appearance in the 14th century. Obvious fraud to anyone who isn't presupposed to belief. Religious "evidence" isn't scientific, as it lacks such rigor and testing, and presupposition is the name of the game. There is no evidence for Jebus that has any scientific rigor. I know that, and you should too.

Again, the crux of your argument is flawed and delusional. Science doesn't chose to believe any evidence. The evidence just exists, and science explains it. Science has no need for your imaginary deity (creator), and can't use the supernatural in its explanations. The same explanation is there with or without the supernatural, so parsimony says leave the supernatural out. So science explains things without your imaginary deity. If you don't like it, show that the science is wrong with more science.

For example, you could show hard physical evidence for your imaginary deity, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. I don't see that happening, as you appear to be a presuppositionalist with respect to your deity. Ergo, you have no argument for your deity. Parsimony says it doesn't exist.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 3, 2010 4:55 PM

Cue PZ admonishing us for feeding a troll in an old thread in 3... 2... 1...

;^)

Posted by: Travis | May 3, 2010 4:59 PM

Rev, whenever I hear the argument based on how much they really, really believed it I laugh as well. Of course, really believing it is only an argument they accept for their own belief. It would be wrong if someone else used it.

AoA contributor Jake Crosby got boring over at Orac's place so I really hope PZ doesn't admonish us. I need a replacement!

Posted by: blf | May 3, 2010 5:03 PM

AoA contributor Jake Crosby got boring over at Orac's place…

I haven't checked recently, but did he ever admit to being mistaken about anything?

Posted by: Travis | May 3, 2010 5:08 PM

No, of course not. He is never wrong, he just meant something other than what he wrote. As for the other things he was wrong about I am not even sure what argument he is making to save them any longer.

I found it quite amazing how everyone else stopped poking him at the same time and it totally went silent on that thread. Is there some sort of critical amount of inanity that kills a thread?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 3, 2010 5:11 PM

Basically like the sun, the moon, and the stars falling out of the sky.

Cheese for everyone!

Posted by: mhugs | May 3, 2010 5:31 PM

Wow. The crux of this entire argument is you too have faith- because you cannot prove everything. I don't have enough time in the day to respond to each point.

Josephus- deep study has been made around what was original vs. added at a later date. The historical record has been ferreted out to justify the historical Christ. For example "man, if you can call him that" was probably added. The historical Christ reference is generally agreed to be authentic. But feel free to dismiss it because it can't possibly be correct if he never existed.

Crucifixion eclipse: Phlegon wrote about the darkness that occurred in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (equivilant to 33 A.D.). "There was the greatest eclipse of the sun. It became as night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia and many things were overturned in Nicaea". Moreover, Julius Africanus in gives a commentary on Thallus’ AD 33 record of the darkness across the land. "Thallus in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably as it seems to me." in AD 33. Has to be coincidence again because your worldview says it is. And well Im just a moron anyway to even bring this up.

The Snark comment about Christianity being similar to modern cults: Are the Branch Davidians still around after David Koresh died? Are their leaders still around preaching he's the messiah? They haven't been to my town proclaiming it on the court houses and arguing in the synagogues from what I can see.

Aztec priests- nonsense argument as they were not risking their lives to proclaim a new message that they personally witnessed. They were just ripping hearts out because they thought their gods dug it and they looked cool bouncing down the pyramid.

Show me 12 UFO abductees who were all apart of the same abduction and report the same story. Yes, they often suffer from PTSD from their hypnosis sessions, and they truly believe what happened but again- but they are individual stories stitched together per stimulation of temporal lobe. They have proven that you can put a frickin electro magnetic hat on the temporal lobe and reproduce an alien abduction experience. Christ appeared to 100+ people and to 20+ in the same room who reported the same story. James, his very own brother who saw him from day 1 - believed he was the Messiah- and had calluses on his knees from praying so much.

Evidence & points don't really matter to you. Each point will always be refuted because they are counter to what you want to believe. Go ahead and say the same thing about me.

Its odd that each time there is a debate about this- the debate always turns to personal attacks (delusional, moron, etc.) where you directly or indirectly espouse your intellectual superiority over the person of 'faith'. Realize you too are accepting other's evidence that you have not personally witnessed or personally investigated. You too cannot explain all- so you choose an explanation which seems logical to you based on your worldview. You too have a foundation based on faith.

Posted by: blf | May 3, 2010 5:37 PM

Yes, it's called night.

Except according to the earliest version in Mark, which is very explicit about the timeline of the Passion, it was noon in Jerusalem…

Yes, but: Are you arguing a scroll written years (probably decades) after the alleged event, and edited numerous times by biased copyists, is accurate? And, Roman custom of the time (as I understand it) was to leave the body hanging to rot and/or be eaten. The Jews of the time found that very offensive (which, of course, it was meant to be). Apparently there are some non-canonical gospel(s?) which say Herod(?) ordered the body taken down before nightfall.

All this, of course, is not too relevant to our troll (who, I will guess, doesn't even know what we're talking about). For the troll, the point was night must have happened, whether or not there was an execution, and independent of the poor sod(s) who were killed—In order words, a (presumably literal) claim the Earth was dark is normal and expected.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 3, 2010 6:04 PM

Wow. The crux of this entire argument is you too have faith- because you cannot prove everything. - mhugs

Look, shit-for-brains, the difference between faith and provisional, testable assumptions has already been explained to you.

Phlegon wrote about the darkness that occurred in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (equivilant to 33 A.D.). "There was the greatest eclipse of the sun. It became as night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia and many things were overturned in Nicaea". Moreover, Julius Africanus in gives a commentary on Thallus’ AD 33 record of the darkness across the land. "Thallus in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably as it seems to me." in AD 33.

Utter bilge: see Thallus: an Analysis (1999). Also, why doesn't Pliny the Elder, who was much neaer in time, and made a vast collection of strange events, mention it? Why isn't it in the Chinese annals?

Are the Branch Davidians still around after David Koresh died?

As a matter of fact, I believe so. Whatever, the Mormons certainly are: following Joseph Smith's lynching, they showed their faith by trekking halfway across North America seeking their "promised land". So are the Scientologists, despite also being founded by a many-times proven liar.

Christ appeared to 100+ people and to 20+ in the same room who reported the same story. James, his very own brother who saw him from day 1 - believed he was the Messiah- and had calluses on his knees from praying so much.

Crap. We have claims that the resurrected Jesus appeared to 100+ people - we do not have 100+ independent accounts. Tell you what - I can walk on water and raise the dead. Well over 10,000 people have seen me do it at once! What do you mean, you don't believe it? I tell you again, more than 10,000 people saw me do it! If you actually look at the gospel accounts of both crucifixion and resurrection, they are full of inconsistencies as to what happened when, who saw him first, etc. etc.

Evidence & points don't really matter to you.

We have a true master of projection here!

Each point will always be refuted because they are counter to what you want to believe completely stupid crap.

Fixed for you - no charge.

directly or indirectly espouse your intellectual superiority over the person of 'faith'.

If the best I could reasonably claim about my intellect is that it is superior to yours, I'd go and hide in a hole.

Posted by: mhugs | May 3, 2010 6:17 PM

Please show me you have physical evidence for the origins of the universe. please enlighten me how something comes from absolutely nothing. this is the foundation for everything and if you cannot explain how we came from nothing then how is your argument any way superior to mine? A pink frickin fairy created the universe with fairy dust. Show me physical proof she didnt. It's as logical as something comes from nothing argument that we are simply the chanced biproducts of galactic garbage.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 3, 2010 6:26 PM

please enlighten me how something comes from absolutely nothing.

Show me physical proof she didnt.

Posted by: CJO | May 3, 2010 6:47 PM

Phlegon wrote about the darkness that occurred in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (equivilant to 33 A.D.). "There was the greatest eclipse of the sun. It became as night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia and many things were overturned in Nicaea

It can't have been an eclipse. Passover begins on a full moon, making an eclipse of the Sun a physical impossibility on the day Jesus was crucified according to the story. Furthermore, had totality been visible in Nicaea, it could not have been any more than partial at Jerusalem.

Clearly what is being narrated is a supernatural, apocalyptic event, and one that is not remarked upon in any number of sources that easily could have witnessed or been informed of such a singular occurrence and who would have been eager to report it, as Knockgoats points out.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | May 3, 2010 6:52 PM

Hmmm. I can't find out for certain where the centre of the Chinese intelligentsia in the first century CE was, but if we use Beijing to test the hypothesis, then it'll have been around 17:00 there when Noon struck in Jerusalem and the world turned dark. Beijing is pretty southerly, but it's not completely out of the question that for the Chinese observers at the time it was already night when darkness fell. Since it was only for three hours it could well have gone completely unnoticed depending on the kind of darkness.

So to be scrupulously fair, the silence of the Chinese does not necessarily invalidate the claim of a worldwide darkness of supernatural origin.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 3, 2010 6:57 PM

A pink frickin fairy created the universe with fairy dust. Show me physical proof she didnt. It's as logical as something comes from nothing argument that we are simply the chanced biproducts of galactic garbage.

Except we have evidence pointing to what we know scientifically about the origins, though it admittedly is incomplete. Where you have exactly bupkis supporting your claims of a creator that came from nothing past some stories recorded long after the supposed events occurred and their supernatural claims left as wholly unsupported as your pink unicorn (or teapot or invisible green dragon if you will).

The big difference here is this:

To this date not one mystery of the world has been solved by religious proclimations, where every other mystery that we have answered has been done so in some scientific manner.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 3, 2010 7:14 PM

Realize you too are accepting other's evidence that you have not personally witnessed or personally investigated.

Here's the thing about science. See there are these nice little things called journals and research papers where experiments and studies are recorded so that their methods can be repeated and their results verified. Any scientists with the proper understanding of subject matter can in theory repeats the research and experiments and can thereby verify what the original results were.

Discoveries such as fossils like Tiktaalik have their methods for determining where a fossil is likely to be found via already known facts about geology and previous fossil discoveries among other things. The very fact that these things can be found is because science works. There is a method to the work, a fact checking structure in place to verify discoveries and conclusions and the information is recorded so that people in the future can repeat the work that allowed for the discoveries to happen. It's not a matter of faith like you'd like to claim it. It's a matter of reality.

now, explain the complimentary religious structure for verification of claims?

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | May 3, 2010 7:17 PM

mhugs #155 wrote:

please enlighten me how something comes from absolutely nothing.

Where did you get the idea that there's ever been 'absolutely nothing'?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 3, 2010 7:22 PM

Please ignore the typos above. For some reason i felt the need to add s to the end of a number of words that did not require it (among other things).

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 3, 2010 7:32 PM

(And I didn't refresh before seeing that CJO said the same thing. Oh, well.)

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 3, 2010 8:01 PM

Please show me you have physical evidence for the origins of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

Now if you're asking "what came before the big bang" or "why is there something instead of nothing", then we don't know. We don't even know if the questions make sense (talking about "before the big bang" could very well be like asking what's north of the North pole). We got people working on it. However, what we do know is that "magic man done it" is not a satisfactory explanation.

please enlighten me how something comes from absolutely nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

this is the foundation for everything

Not really.

and if you cannot explain how we came from nothing then how is your argument any way superior to mine?

It's backed by evidence and basic logic.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 3, 2010 8:26 PM

"Yes science explains some things- as I will grant you the human mind is capable of contemplation and problem solving."

Shades of Life of Brian here. "Okay, aside from disease prevention, cures, clean water, transportation, space travel, and computers (and religious tale debunking), what has science ever done for us?"

"But it does not explain all things- and topics that are of most importance (creation of universe, universal laws, etc.) - scientific faith is required."

I could be terribly practical and suggest that how the universe was created is not really of any importance to life on earth, and that questions about the afterlife are only important to people who are afraid of death.

At any rate, science has provided the best and most reproducible results. Religion has had it's chance to solve those mysteries for thousands of years, and all they've got are thousands of contradicting stories that people only believe because somebody wrote them down in an Important Book before they were born.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | May 3, 2010 9:31 PM

So to be scrupulously fair, the silence of the Chinese does not necessarily invalidate the claim of a worldwide darkness of supernatural origin.

Um, scrupulous fairness requires note that mhugs claimed that there is evidence that the world turned dark during the Crucifixion, and cited reports of a solar eclipse. That something or other doesn't necessarily invalidate a claim of the supernatural is a stunningly weak claim, obviously tautological, and beyond irrelevant.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | May 4, 2010 3:13 AM

All I meant was that it would have been possible for the Chinese to miss an world encompassing supernatural darkness

Congratulations on completely missing the point. You wrote "the silence of the Chinese does not necessarily invalidate the claim of a worldwide darkness of supernatural origin" -- but how can the silence of anyone necessarily invalidate any supernatural claim? Do you understand what "necessarily", "invalidate", and "supernatural" mean? You wrote "to be scrupulously fair", but you seem unwilling to scrupulously examine your own words.

Again: mhugs said that there is evidence that the world turned dark during the Crucifixion, and cited reports of a solar eclipse as that evidence. Of course one can just assert that it was a "supernatural darkness", a miracle that doesn't have to play by any physical rules, in which case one can come up with an infinity of explanations of why the Chinese didn't record it. But positing miracles of arbitrary nature when one claims to be offering evidence is not what I would call being "scupulously fair".

I'm not exactly skilled in apologetics for crazy claims.

No, actually you are quite skilled at it, which is the problem. Here's the take-away message: "scrupulously fair apologetics" is an oxymoron.

Posted by: John Morales | May 5, 2010 7:59 PM

mhugs, it's an open question, about which there has been discussion on other threads.

Did King Arthur exist, and did his named followers (and those named who saw him pull the sword from the stone) exist or were they too part of the myth?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 5, 2010 8:15 PM

If the latter, did his named followers (and those named who saw him after resurrection) exist or were they too part of the myth?

Those who claim to have seen him, or are claimed by others to have claimed to see him (remember, none of the Gospels was written by eyewitnesses, or even contemporaries.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 5, 2010 8:49 PM

Mhugs, showing conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity comes first. No deity, no son of deity. Simple logic you godbots always try to ignore. Which makes your logic fail every time...