Author Topic: More proof that Christianity is true  (Read 289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: More proof that Christianity is true
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2018, 06:46:36 pm »
And here is an article showing scientific evidence for the Earthquake and how it distorted the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, indicating that the Shroud of Turin was really Jesus’ burial cloth. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/12/newser-shroud-turin-earthquake/5418349/
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 07:00:02 pm by Jacob Harrison »

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3531
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: More proof that Christianity is true
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2018, 08:03:27 pm »
Fair call, got it confused with Nice. Geography fail there.

Still 900km away (about 600 miles to youse seppos) and plenty of intervening cities between them even in the late iron age so still a major earthquake for which you'd need a lot more supporting evidence-which, um, you don't have, um.
And here is an article showing scientific evidence for the Earthquake and how it distorted the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, indicating that the Shroud of Turin was really Jesus’ burial cloth. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/12/newser-shroud-turin-earthquake/5418349/
The Shroud of Turin website puts the carbon dating of the shroud many centuries after Jesus reported death.

Quote
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

And yes, yes. We know that lots of Catholic "researchers" are up in arms about puported problems with the radiocarbon dating. Take it away again RationalWiki.

Quote
There are many articles[9] online that say two scientists, Giulio Fanti, and Saverio Gaeta, have reexamined the shroud, and found it to be from around the time Jesus existed.

There are three problems with this pronouncement.

First, just because the shroud is from that time does not mean it was necessarily the shroud of Jesus. Yes, the shroud looks like the man was crucified, but it is widely accepted that crucifixion was the most common way to execute people during the First Century CE. Also the 14C-based date of the material doesn't mean the object was manufactured at that time, it is the date when the plants used to weave the cloth were alive. These usually correspond to the same approximate date within the error range of 14C dating unless the weaver is using unusually old plant material or the cloth being used was already old when it was used.

Second, both scientists are Catholics. I think we all know the track record of claims by Christians in matters of the faith. Also, there might be some motivation for Catholics to want to prove the shroud is real in that Pope Benedict XVI declared it the "official burial shroud of Jesus".

Third, the methods used. Infrared rays are able to determine the age of something very recent, and not the ancient past. The other method was spectroscopy, which has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the object.

...

Of course some "Shroudies" will claim the skeptics and critics are in denial. However, they seem to have forgotten all the times they've been questioning the Shroud just because of the "right date". The reasons the carbon dating didn't work was for the nitpickiest of reasons. So it's tested again on the "right date", and we find something wrong with that test. Suddenly it's the skeptics and critics who are being nitpicky! It's not uncommon for Christian fundies to do this, rather it's a pretty standard M.O.: Calling critics closed-minded for not subscribing to fundie mumbo jumbo, while at the same time denying evolution even when the evidence for it is presented, and evolution denialists' claims to falsify evolution have never held water.

Which is of course the central problem with arguing with the religious in general, there's only ever a problem with the evidence when it works against their confirmation bias. It's prettied up as an argument about facts but really it's an argument about faith and you can't shake someone's faith if they don't want it shaken regardless of what the facts are.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: More proof that Christianity is true
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2018, 08:49:45 pm »
Fair call, got it confused with Nice. Geography fail there.

Still 900km away (about 600 miles to youse seppos) and plenty of intervening cities between them even in the late iron age so still a major earthquake for which you'd need a lot more supporting evidence-which, um, you don't have, um.
And here is an article showing scientific evidence for the Earthquake and how it distorted the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, indicating that the Shroud of Turin was really Jesus’ burial cloth. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/12/newser-shroud-turin-earthquake/5418349/
The Shroud of Turin website puts the carbon dating of the shroud many centuries after Jesus reported death.

Quote
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

And yes, yes. We know that lots of Catholic "researchers" are up in arms about puported problems with the radiocarbon dating. Take it away again RationalWiki.

Quote
There are many articles[9] online that say two scientists, Giulio Fanti, and Saverio Gaeta, have reexamined the shroud, and found it to be from around the time Jesus existed.

There are three problems with this pronouncement.

First, just because the shroud is from that time does not mean it was necessarily the shroud of Jesus. Yes, the shroud looks like the man was crucified, but it is widely accepted that crucifixion was the most common way to execute people during the First Century CE. Also the 14C-based date of the material doesn't mean the object was manufactured at that time, it is the date when the plants used to weave the cloth were alive. These usually correspond to the same approximate date within the error range of 14C dating unless the weaver is using unusually old plant material or the cloth being used was already old when it was used.

Second, both scientists are Catholics. I think we all know the track record of claims by Christians in matters of the faith. Also, there might be some motivation for Catholics to want to prove the shroud is real in that Pope Benedict XVI declared it the "official burial shroud of Jesus".

Third, the methods used. Infrared rays are able to determine the age of something very recent, and not the ancient past. The other method was spectroscopy, which has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the object.

...

Of course some "Shroudies" will claim the skeptics and critics are in denial. However, they seem to have forgotten all the times they've been questioning the Shroud just because of the "right date". The reasons the carbon dating didn't work was for the nitpickiest of reasons. So it's tested again on the "right date", and we find something wrong with that test. Suddenly it's the skeptics and critics who are being nitpicky! It's not uncommon for Christian fundies to do this, rather it's a pretty standard M.O.: Calling critics closed-minded for not subscribing to fundie mumbo jumbo, while at the same time denying evolution even when the evidence for it is presented, and evolution denialists' claims to falsify evolution have never held water.

Which is of course the central problem with arguing with the religious in general, there's only ever a problem with the evidence when it works against their confirmation bias. It's prettied up as an argument about facts but really it's an argument about faith and you can't shake someone's faith if they don't want it shaken regardless of what the facts are.

Ok, I concede that the Earthquake in Nicea is not the same one as the one in Jerusalem, however the article I linked, gives an explanation for why the Shroud is dated to 1260-1390 which is that the Earthquake distorted the results of the radiocarbon dating.