Scientific Approach to the Jesus question

[Wilmet]

TW,

Your understanding of RCD seems a bit shaky. Unless you introduce significant amounts of "new" carbon into the material, into every fiber, the base material should show a valid result. Are you suggesting that the shroud was somehow treated by being immersed in a carbon based "preservative" in the 1300's? I thought this was supposed to be a holy relic from long before that. Who would do such a thing, and how?

Hi superluminal,

The following suggests a 1300 year mistake. I find all this quite interesting.

http://www.shroud.com/wilson.htm

 

[TW Scott]

TW,

Your understanding of RCD seems a bit shaky. Unless you introduce significant amounts of "new" carbon into the material, into every fiber, the base material should show a valid result. Are you suggesting that the shroud was somehow treated by being immersed in a carbon based "preservative" in the 1300's? I thought this was supposed to be a holy relic from long before that. Who would do such a thing, and how?

Actually my understanding of radioactive nuclear decay is quite good. While 99.999% of people believe that heat, light, pressure, and humidity do not have an effect on radioactive decay, they are wrong. The biggest proof is the nuclear weapon. It also failes to take into account of new cabon transferral aka touching, dust, dustmites and etc. think about that for just a fraction of a second.

 

[baumgarten]

I don't know about those examples, TW, but wasn't the shroud involved in a fire? Smoke tends to contain a lot of carbon.

 

[Iasion]

Well, here is the deal, we have physical evidence

There is no physical evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.
If YOU think there is, please tell us what this evidence is.

the record of his crucifixtion

There is no record of his crucifixion.

The early NT books (Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John) show no knowledge of a historical Jesus of Nazareth - e.g. there is NO MENTION of the empty tomb, no Mary Joseph, Pilate, trial etc. Just spiritual references to a risen Christ being.

Paul never met any Jesus.
the writer(s) of Peter 1,2 never met any Jesus.
the writer of John 1,2,3 never met any Jesus.
the writer of Jude never met any Jesus.
the writer of James never met any Jesus.
(according to modern NT scholars.)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Then, the Gospels appeared and become known to Christians around the early-mid 2nd century :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html

G.Mark was written first, probably in Rome, by someone who knew little about Judea and had never met any Jesus - the original G.Mark had no resurrection story at all - it ended at 16:8.

G.Luke and G.Matthew COPIED G.Mark while making changes when it suited them - clearly not eye-witnesses. They both follow the story of Mark very closely - EXCEPT what Mark doesn't have, i.e. the BIRTH stories and the RESURRECTION stories. Matthew and Luke were constrained to follow Mark's outline, but free to make up new stories where Mark was silent - CLEAR and OBVIOUS signs of MYTH making.

G.John is very late (90-120) and tells a rather different story.

In short,
NOT ONE book of the NT was written by anyone who mey any Jesus
(according to modern NT scholars.)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

and the Shroud of Turin.

Wow.
You tell US to do some research, but you don't even know the Shroud has been proved a forgery?

The Shroud was conclusively dated to 14th century

When there is anecdoctal evidence in such wide abundance science is hesitant to rule a noexistance without out at least as much physical ad anecdoctal evidence to the contrary.

We have an abundance of anecdotal evidene about Osiris - that does not mean he existed.
Same with Odysseus, Hercules, Krishna etc.

Anecdotal evidence means STORIES.

We have anecdotal evidence for Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, James Bond etc.

When all we have is STORIES that are clearly legendary and religious in nature, but NO EVIDENCE - then the obvious conclusion is a MYTH.

So a real scientist would claim that Jeshua more than likely existed.

History is not science.
Scientists do not study history.

HISTORIANS do - some of whom DO argue Jesus never existed - e.g. Richard Carrier.

They would not rule him a myth, even though myths may surround him. That is the point here.

Many writers and historians HAVE argued Jesus was a myth.
* C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
* Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
* Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
* Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
* David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
* T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
* Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
* Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
* William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
* Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
* M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
* Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
* John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
* Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth
* Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
* L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
* Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
* P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
* Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
* Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
* Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
* Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ

Would you rule that Julius Ceasar is fictional even though several stories told of him are little more than flight of fancy?

We have HARD and certain evidence for Julius Caesar - NONE for Jesus.
(It always amazes me how Christian apologists so often wrongly spell one of the most famous names in all history.

Would you rule that Hercules is fictional?
Yes, because all we have is flights of fancy stories.
Even though people thought he was real.

Would you rule that Zeus is fictional?
Yes, because all we have is flights of fancy stories.
Even though people thought he was real.

Just like Jesus - all we have is fanciful legends and religious stories mixed in with some history (like Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter or James Bond or Gone With the Wind) - but NO contemporary EVIDENCE of any sort.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Actually my understanding of radioactive nuclear decay is quite good. While 99.999% of people believe that heat, light, pressure, and humidity do not have an effect on radioactive decay, they are wrong.

In other words -

all the world's experts are wrong,
but TW Scott is right.

But let me predict -
TW Scott will not be able to produce any evidence to back up his claims.


Iasion

 

[Cris]

TheVisitor,

Chris, you really spent some time on that response didn't you?

No more than most responses I make.

That makes my day, because if you don't consider an adversary a worthy opponent you don't spend that kind of effort trying to defeat them.

Your beliefs represent a form of fundamentalism that I see as the underlying cause of most of the world’s problems. I find your perspective deeply distasteful. I significantly constrained the vehemence in my response.

A moderator should be impartial, unbiased, ect....

I am both a moderator and a debater. In debate I have very strong specific views. Those views do not interfere with my impartial treatment of debaters and control of the forum regarding discipline etc. Please don’t confuse my two hats.

I can't just stand idly by and watch it being done here, when there are young minds still unsure of what to believe.
There needs to be a "balance to The Force", especially here.

I’m not interested in balance only truth. But you are indeed completely free here to post your views without constraint.

I'm having fun here, and really enjoy the challange...because for one you all are "keeping me one my toes" as to say, making me read and study more than ever.

In that regard I am pleased for you and please note my dispute is with the processes and institutions that have led you to believe what you do, not particularly with you personally.

 

[TW Scott]

Ok. Done. You do realize that the developers of RCD weren't just some bumpkins from the hill country? They are well aware of the sources of error and take them into account. RCD is very accurate and has actually been calibrated, using Egyptian and other artifacts of known dates to periods well before 2000 BCE.

Sealed in stone sarcophagi/tomb in known pressures and temperature ranges. And still have only a 10% accuracy rating. Meaning in 20 test they throw out 18 as completely wrong.

Now compare to a shroud that have been in variable humidity, pressure, temperature, been subjected to dust, smoke and physical touch of unknown amounts.

Very accurate my white hairy arse

 

[baumgarten]

So how do variances in pressure and temperature affect the radioactive half-life of Carbon-14?

 

[TW Scott]

So how do variances in pressure and temperature affect the radioactive half-life of Carbon-14?

As with uranium decreases in pressure and temepreature result in a slower decomposition. Raise the pressure and the temperature and you get faster decay. This is why you can fool a small amount of plutonium into thinking it has critical mass by using explosives.

 

[baumgarten]

I was kinda hoping for an explanation, but I'll look it up myself.

 

[Iasion]

Sealed in stone sarcophagi/tomb in known pressures and temperature ranges.

Nonsense.
Many tests have been done of items NOT found in tombs.

Such as Varves - actual layers of silt and debris laid down yearly for over 40,000 years in places - Carbon dating can thus be tested directly - it has been, and has been found accurate.

And still have only a 10% accuracy rating. Meaning in 20 test they throw out 18 as completely wrong.

Rubbish.
Complete and utter nonsense.
Readers beware - this is absolutely false.
TW Scott clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

Now compare to a shroud that have been in variable humidity, pressure, temperature, been subjected to dust, smoke and physical touch of unknown amounts.

Which have NO effect on carbon decay.
TW Scott is making claims which are clearly disproved by direct testing.

Carbon dating can be, and has been, directly tested using various controls - it's slight inaccuracies are fully understood.
Only Christian fundamentalist apologists make these crazy claims - because then they can pretend the Shroud is real.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

As with uranium decreases in pressure and temepreature result in a slower decomposition. Raise the pressure and the temperature and you get faster decay. This is why you can fool a small amount of plutonium into thinking it has critical mass by using explosives.

False.
Completely and utterly wrong.

What we actually OBSERVE is that decay is NOT affected by pressure and temperature.

TW SCott is unable to produce a single example where they do.

Except for the Shroud of course

The fundamentalist's argument goes like this:
* we KNOW the SHroud is real ("praise Jesus!")
* the Shroud is carbon dated to 14th century
* therefore carbon dating is false.
* therefore the Shroud is real,
* therefore Jesus was real.

What nonsense.

In fact, carbon dating CAN be tested - it HAS been tested.
It has been calibrated accurately.
It works.

But,
fundamentalist Christians simply refuse to believe the facts.

Because it proves their precious shroud is just another forgery in a long line of forgeries dating back to the earliest Christian times - such as the forged Donation of Constantine, the forged Decretals, the forged pastorals and James etc.


Iasion

 

[TW Scott]

Ok proove where pressure and heat do not effect radioactive decay. Oh you can't? Gee, I wonder why. Laws of the universe are constant. You can't change them mid-game becuase suddenly they are not on your side.

 

[baumgarten]

I can't believe you're arguing physics. Just present the damn laws and let them speak for themselves.

 

[TW Scott]

It's much more fun to hoist them by their petard, anyone who nows nuclear chemistry at all understands these concepts but they are arguing them. It shows how much they will argue a given case knowing they are wrong. It ruins their credibility.

 

[TheVisitor]

Bizarre.
We OBSERVE that pressure and heat do not effect radioactive decay.

Pressure definitely affects radioactive interaction causing heat and more.
One of the two first atom bombs were called a "gun type" which slams two halves of a critical mass together creating the reaction.

Modern weapons use shaped high explosives to compress a sub-critical mass and make it a critical mass by compression starting the reaction.
I say what TW's saying has merit then.
Pressure has been proven to affect radioactivity.
But your free to see if the military will let you set off the shaped charges surrounding the plutonium core by hand if you don't believe me.
That will take care of one potential problem with the future gene pool.
Some people like those from Missouri just won't believe you less you "show 'em".

 

[baumgarten]

Hey TW, I googled pressure radioactive decay. I didn't find the math, but I did find this:

There are many methods of radioactive dating, of which carbon dating is
only one. It turns out that carbon dating doesn't work very well on old
things, because carbon-14's half life is too short. It can be used
reliably only for artifacts younger than about 40,000 years.

There are several mechanisms of radioactive decay. The most common ones
are alpha and beta decay, in which a nucleus gives off a helium nucleus and
an electron, respectively. These mechanisms are completely insensitive to
the environment: the rate of decay is constant and invariant.

There is one type of radioactive decay that is a little bit sensitive to
the environment. This is electron capture, in which a nucleus absorbs an
electron. This is the reverse of beta decay. The process will go a bit
faster if the probability of the nucleus encountering an electron is
higher, as can happen if the chemical environment changes or the pressure
increases. The change in rate is small, however, and tremendous pressure
changes are required to alter the rate measureably. Anyhow, I don't think
that any nuclei used for radioactive dating decay by the electron capture
process (I could be wrong - I'm not a geologist). At any rate, the most
important and widely-used radioactive dating methods use nuclei that decay
by the alpha or beta process.


Richard Barrans Jr., Ph.D.

Source: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x43.htm

 

[Iasion]

Ok proove where pressure and heat do not effect radioactive decay. Oh you can't?

Bizarre.

We OBSERVE that pressure and heat do not effect radioactive decay.

We have OBSERVED radioactive decay under large ranges of pressure and heat - it is not affected (except under some extremes not found on Earth.)

TW Scott simply pretends an observed fact of nature is not true.

Laws of the universe are constant. You can't change them mid-game becuase suddenly they are not on your side.

We observe that radioactive decay is a CONSTANT LAW, yes.

We observe that is NOT affected by presure and temperature.

We also understand why - low energy, slow chemical interactions do not interfere with high energy, fast nuclear reactions.

Fundamentalists simply deny facts of nature when it suits them.

It's like pretending people can fly :

Fundy: "people CAN fly you know"

Sceptic: "what?"

Fundy: "yes, things don't always fall downwards"

Sceptic: "um, do you have any evidence"

F: "do YOU have any evidence things always fall downwards?"

S: "well, yes, we observe it.."

F: "but can you prove it?"

S: "um, do you have any examples of things falling upwards?"

F: "do you have any proof they can't?"

and so on...


I am sure readers will understand that I will probably not be answering TW Scott much more

Iasion

 

[§outh§tar]

TW Scott, I asked you a question which you forgot to respond to:

TW,

Are you able to provide any corroboration for your claims about RCD and the Constitution?

Radiocarbon which dates the US constitution at only 70 years old. It's unreliable in anything older than a couple weeks becuase they forget that measure thaken to preserve an object do slow radioactive decays and high pressure makes it go faster.

 

[TheVisitor]

In that regard I am pleased for you and please note my dispute is with the processes and institutions that have led you to believe what you do, not particularly with you personally.

The Inquisition that killed 68 million for disagreeing with the pope, modern Protestants apostasy compromising on truth and joining the Catholics in the "ecumenical movement" is NOT of God.
It is a man-made system that attempts to imitate, and usurp God's relationship with Man.
I have tried to explain the difference to those interested, but my statements may have been construed as support for "Christianity" as an organization in general and this false system I have just described.
That would be untrue.There is a fine line.

By its false doctrines leading man into division, religions have brought suffering to mankind.
Most wars were inspired by the differences in belief.
But most see the same old debate as science vs religion and throw all the marbles in one bag or the other.