Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,

- Thanks.

- So far, we disagree -- and with your much greater knowledge about the Shroud, I certainly have to question my own conclusions re the carbon dating...
- And agreed, "reasonable doubt" is certainly a vague term.
- But so far, I still think that there is enough doubt -- especially, when the reservations are added up -- to require further consideration of the other evidence.

- I'll be back.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I notice that you are continuing your impolite habit of selecting only a poster or two to who to respond.

I also notice that, your "doubts" about the ¹⁴C dating are not based upon any actual circumstance of the dating itself, but are, instead, as they have been all along, driven by your conclusion that the CIQ must be "genuine", that is, the "True Shroud^TM".

Given the circumstances under which the CIQ was, in fact, tested, might you be so kind as to explain what you, personally, would require in order to realize that the ¹⁴C dating conclusively demonstrates that the CIQ is a manifestly medieval artifact? Is there anything, any fact, any circumstance, that might be presented, or is your conclusion that the CIQ is "genuine" so firm, so independent of evidence that there is nothing that could convince you? I would be fascinated with your answer.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Hugh,

- Thanks.

- So far, we disagree -- and with your much greater knowledge about the Shroud, I certainly have to question my own conclusions re the carbon dating...
- And agreed, "reasonable doubt" is certainly a vague term.
- But so far, I still think that there is enough doubt -- especially, when the reservations are added up -- to require further consideration of the other evidence.

- I'll be back.

Shouted from the back of a green woodpecker

 

[Dinwar]

- And agreed, "reasonable doubt" is certainly a vague term.

Certainly not true. Reasonable doubt is the result of demonstrating that the data in question may not support hte conclusion (or do not only support the conclusion) someone wants to reach, or that the methods in quesiton are insufficient to provide data upon which to base a conclusion. It would be reasonable--because it would be logical and rational.

To call doubts that is based on nothing but hand-waving, ignoring the facts, and out-right lies "reasonable" is to contradict one's self.

Oh, I should also point out (again) that if there WAS an invisible patch added to the shroud, it would necessarily count as a composite sample. One invisible patch technique uses threads from other areas of the cloth to fill in holes--in clothing they take threads from the inside of seams, where no one will notice, for example. Take too many from one area and you'll weaken it, so necessity demands they take threads from various places throughout the cloth. This results in an area that is, essentially, average for the cloth--which is ideal for radiocarbon dating, and would be preferred for that reason. The other technique, used for larger holes, uses a patch of cloth from some other area of the cloth and interweaves the threads at the edges. Either way, invisible patches--a misnomer, because they are visible upon inspection--use the cloth to repair itself, and therefore would not affect the dating what so ever.

No invisble patch was used; such patches are very easily visible upon close inspection, and are "invisible" in the sense that most people won't notice in your day-to-day life. So we can be confident that no invisible patch was used. My point is, even giving Jabba the most extreme benefit of the doubt, his argument STILL doesn't hold water.

- But so far, I still think that there is enough doubt -- especially, when the reservations are added up -- to require further consideration of the other evidence.

Even if this was true--and it is not--it's still not the "out" you hope for. It has been demonstrated in this thread that the shroud is a Medieval artifact, from the 13th century or thereabouts, via the historic record. Others have demonstrated the timeframe more precisely than radiocarbon dating using the art style of the shroud (not an unusual occurrance in archaeology; the error bars in radiocarbon dating are far greater than the error bars in artistic movements in all but the earliest humans). These both serve as independent verification of the shroud's age, via methods that are considered standard in the archaeological community.

(In the interest of completeness, historical records often require some interpretation--see Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to see copious examples--because of shifts in style. This is universally known in archaeology, and a great deal of the appeal of archaeology in certain circles; it's facinating to tease out the facts from fantastical records. That said, nothing can alter the fact that the first records of the shroud appear in the 13th century, and it was called out as a fraud early in its history.)

As Charles Freeman pointed out, the obsession with trying to prove it's the burial shroud of Christ is actually holding us back--there were reasons for making such artifacts, and as this is one of the best-preserved it could tell us a great deal about those reasons, but we are unable to examine it in that light because of the "It's the Shroud of Jesus!!!!" crowd.

As multiple people have pointed out, the shroud's picture flat-out contradicts the Bible, meaning either the Bible is wrong or the shroud is fake. So to believe the shroud is true is to be a heretic. Simply put, if the shroud were true it calls into quesiton every aspect of the Gosples--because if they can't even get the way Christ was wrapped right (and believe me, laying to rest a loved one is something that sticks in your mind), how are we supposed to believe the rest? It's the equivalent of saying "I'm an expert driver, and was a professional racecar driver" then asking "What's the third peddle for?"

Need I go on? Even without the C14 dating, your conclusion is impossible. The C14 dating merely allows us--if we could ever move on past this nonsense--to figure out what is ACTUALLY going on.

 

[catsmate]

Why are you ignoring Dinwar's posts?

He's ignoring everyone whom he knows is unaccepting of his belief in the shroud.

 

[tsig]

Many thanks to Charles Freeman for pointing out his excellent piece. It was a fascinating read. After reading it, I thought of something that I'm not sure has been discussed in this Jabba mega-thread (apologies if it has). If Jesus had his head wrapped in a separate face cloth before being wrapped by the shroud, shouldn't the face on the CIQ be more faded and indistinct relative to the rest of the body (ie - a lot of the blood and dirt would have been absorbed by the face cloth instead of the CIQ)? Although I guess that shroudies could simply argue that the "radiation" that caused the image would negate the extra layer of cloth between Jesus and the CIQ.

Yes, the Resurrection Energy was capable of doing anything it needed to do to make the story work.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Reasonable Doubt

- Here's my list of reservations so far. I'll try to provide good summaries and links for each.
- Given these reservations re the carbon dating, can we reasonably sentence the shroud to death without looking at the rest of the evidence?

- One tiny section
- Oft handled section
- Next to obvious repairs
- Age gradient
- Next to selvedge
- Statistics
- Laboratories used same techniques
- Raes
- Rogers
- Scientists biased also
- Donation to Oxford
- Michael Tite
- Hall
- No Archeologist involved
- STURP kicked out
- Gove kicked out
- Protocols not met
- Garcia Valdez
- Adding up potential contaminants
- Controls

 

[Mashuna]

- Here's my list of reservations so far. I'll try to provide good summaries and links for each.
- Given these reservations re the carbon dating, can we reasonably sentence the shroud to death without looking at the rest of the evidence?

- One tiny section
- Oft handled section
- Next to obvious repairs
- Age gradient
- Next to selvedge
- Statistics
- Laboratories used same techniques
- Raes
- Rogers
- Scientists biased also
- Donation to Oxford
- Michael Tite
- Hall
- No Archeologist involved
- STURP kicked out
- Gove kicked out
- Protocols not met
- Garcia Valdez
- Adding up potential contaminants
- Controls

Yes, given that all of these objections have been dealt with and categorised as either spurious, unevidenced, incorrect and potentially libellous, we can confirm that there is no need to look at any other evidence for the case that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Dinwar]

One tiny section

Without evidence that it's non-representitive, this is irrelivant.

Oft handled section

Due to the various cleaning techniques, this is irrelevant.

Next to obvious repairs

Which means repairs to the shroud CAN be identified, which means this area IS NOT a patch, which means it IS representative. This refutes the first point. This alone proves you're grasping at any evidence you can possibly find to shore up the sinking ship of authenticity--when you cite contradictory arguments, you are obviously not examining the arguments honestly.

Age gradient

The age gradient, as I recall, is within the error bars--which means it's a statistical artifact, not real.

Next to selvedge

The fact that it's near an edge is irrelevant. This style of edge uses the same fabric.

Statistics

This isn't a reason. Not without a GREAT deal more information.

Laboratories used same techniques

This is a lie. Some of the techniques they used were the same, but many of them were not.

-Raes
- Rogers

Again, not arguments. Or, if they are, this is the most flagrant Argument from Authority I've ever seen.

Scientists biased also

Open and flagrant slander unsupported by any evidence, and refuted by the use of the standards in the experiments at all three labs.

Donation to Oxford

How exactly does this affect C14 ratios?

- Michael Tite
- Hall

Again, not arguments. Or, if they are, this is the most flagrant Argument from Authority I've ever seen.

No Archeologist involved

I'm not an archaeologist, but I've done this sort of work before and have verified the validity of the results. So have a huge number of other people. Thus, this relevant. What exactly would an archaeologist do that these folks didn't? The answer is nothing--they would do nothing differentn from what was done.

STURP kicked out

How exactly does this affect C14 ratios?

Gove kicked out

How exactly does this affect C14 ratios?

Protocols not met

Been discussed. The protocols were adjusted by the folks who have the most interest in an ancient date for the shroud, alteration of sampling plans in the field is almost universal, and nothing about the alterations in protocols had the slightest impact on the results or their validity. Remember, this is the best-controlled sample EVER TAKEN.

Garcia Valdez

Again, not arguments. Or, if they are, this is the most flagrant Argument from Authority I've ever seen.

Adding up potential contaminants

This dishonestly ignores the cleaning protocols.

Controls

To cite the controls on the best-controlled sample ever taken as insufficient is so irrational that it can only be made by someone who has abandoned all pretense at logic.

Jabba, your BEST arguments consist of incantations of the names of people. The rest range from deplorably ignorant (given the time we've spent teaching you this subject) or openly dishonest.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Without evidence that it's non-representitive, this is irrelivant.

Due to the various cleaning techniques, this is irrelevant.

Which means repairs to the shroud CAN be identified, which means this area IS NOT a patch, which means it IS representative. This refutes the first point. This alone proves you're grasping at any evidence you can possibly find to shore up the sinking ship of authenticity--when you cite contradictory arguments, you are obviously not examining the arguments honestly.

The age gradient, as I recall, is within the error bars--which means it's a statistical artifact, not real.

The fact that it's near an edge is irrelevant. This style of edge uses the same fabric.

This isn't a reason. Not without a GREAT deal more information.

This is a lie. Some of the techniques they used were the same, but many of them were not.

Again, not arguments. Or, if they are, this is the most flagrant Argument from Authority I've ever seen.

Open and flagrant slander unsupported by any evidence, and refuted by the use of the standards in the experiments at all three labs.

How exactly does this affect C14 ratios?

Again, not arguments. Or, if they are, this is the most flagrant Argument from Authority I've ever seen.

I'm not an archaeologist, but I've done this sort of work before and have verified the validity of the results. So have a huge number of other people. Thus, this relevant. What exactly would an archaeologist do that these folks didn't? The answer is nothing--they would do nothing differentn from what was done.

How exactly does this affect C14 ratios?

How exactly does this affect C14 ratios?

Been discussed. The protocols were adjusted by the folks who have the most interest in an ancient date for the shroud, alteration of sampling plans in the field is almost universal, and nothing about the alterations in protocols had the slightest impact on the results or their validity. Remember, this is the best-controlled sample EVER TAKEN.

Again, not arguments. Or, if they are, this is the most flagrant Argument from Authority I've ever seen.

This dishonestly ignores the cleaning protocols.

To cite the controls on the best-controlled sample ever taken as insufficient is so irrational that it can only be made by someone who has abandoned all pretense at logic.

Jabba, your BEST arguments consist of incantations of the names of people. The rest range from deplorably ignorant (given the time we've spent teaching you this subject) or openly dishonest.

Thank you, Dinwar. Well said.

(I'm glad I'm in class--having to wait meant that you got to do the heavy lifting).

 

[pgwenthold]

Which means repairs to the shroud CAN be identified, which means this area IS NOT a patch, which means it IS representative. .

One of my favorite parts of the discussion, and one that indicates this HAS to be a joke.

Let's see, a hole or flaw or whatever in the "often-handled obscure corner" of the shroud is fixed using highly advanced, unprecedented AND unreplicated "invisible patching" techniques, but more prominent areas of the shroud, you know, the ones that people actually look at, were patched using crappy old and obvious methods.

I never understood that. They used obvious repairing in important parts of the shroud, if they did decide to fix it, but just happened in this random corner that is always being handled they go balls to the wall to make sure that no one can see it?

It has to be a joke. No one can seriously suggest that nonsense.

 

[pgwenthold]

"Scientists biased also"

Open and flagrant slander unsupported by any evidence, and refuted by the use of the standards in the experiments at all three labs.

There has NEVER been any basis for any claim that, even if the scientists were biased, that they were biased against a 2000 year old date. So his "basis for doubt" is the ASSUMPTION that the scientists were biased in favor of a medieval date. There is easily a case that can be made that they could have just as well been biased in favor of a 2000 year old date.

Of course, there is no reason to think any of that (either way) had any effect on the outcome, because the procedure was designed to avoid that issue.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Here's my list of reservations so far. I'll try to provide good summaries and links for each.
- Given these reservations re the carbon dating, can we reasonably sentence the shroud to death without looking at the rest of the evidence?

- One tiny section
- Oft handled section
- Next to obvious repairs
- Age gradient
- Next to selvedge
- Statistics
- Laboratories used same techniques
- Raes
- Rogers
- Scientists biased also
- Donation to Oxford
- Michael Tite
- Hall
- No Archeologist involved
- STURP kicked out
- Gove kicked out
- Protocols not met
- Garcia Valdez
- Adding up potential contaminants
- Controls

I am curious, Mr. Savage. How do you respond the the fact (as pointed out by Dinwar) that some of your "objections" work against each other; some of them have no bearing; and the rest of them are, demonstrably, flat wrong?

You continue to present a false dichotomy, as if the only two options are the correctly manifestly medieval date, or an indefensible 1^st Century CE date.

Do this: assume, just for the sake of argument (and only for the sake of argument), that each and every one of your "objections" were, in fact, demonstrated to be true, and significant. Where would that get you?

You have been asked, many, many times, even just recently, to produce what evidence you have, that has convinced you that the CIQ dates form the 1^st Century CE. When do you intend to present your evidence?

Do you really think pretending to your "objections" is sufficient?

 

[Dinwar]

There has NEVER been any basis for any claim that, even if the scientists were biased, that they were biased against a 2000 year old date. So his "basis for doubt" is the ASSUMPTION that the scientists were biased in favor of a medieval date. There is easily a case that can be made that they could have just as well been biased in favor of a 2000 year old date.

Very true. It's probable that most of the folks involved simply didn't care (I didn't until these threads, and "I don't care what the answer is, I'm just excited to be a part of the process" isn't an impossible emotion). Simply being biased doesn't say what direction one is biased IN.

Of course, there is no reason to think any of that (either way) had any effect on the outcome, because the procedure was designed to avoid that issue.

Even if the protocols were normal for C14 sampling (send sample to lab, get results along with one or two standards for validation), without someone doing something that affects the outcome bias means nothing. A person could be completely convinced that the shroud was Christ's burial cloth, but as long as he or she doesn't falsify the records or alter the sampling protocol (which we know they didn't, because of the standards--you don't go mucking about with stuff inside a reactor!) their bias is irreelvant. So even if we accept that scientists were biased in exactly the way Jabba says, it still won't disprove the date.

I'm not contradicting you in the least; my comment is more a thought inspired by yours.

Let's see, a hole or flaw or whatever in the "often-handled obscure corner" of the shroud is fixed using highly advanced, unprecedented AND unreplicated "invisible patching" techniques, but more prominent areas of the shroud, you know, the ones that people actually look at, were patched using crappy old and obvious methods.

I never understood that. They used obvious repairing in important parts of the shroud, if they did decide to fix it, but just happened in this random corner that is always being handled they go balls to the wall to make sure that no one can see it?

Yeah, it's something that always struck me as insane. I can see experimenting with a new technique on a patch of cloth, but it's the Middle Ages; cloth isn't exactly hard to come by, and experimenting on a tunic you wear for yardwork is much better than using a religious artifact! And if you know you can make an undetectable patch, why not repair the rest with it? Today I'd use an obvious patch, because I know the importance of showing what's original and what's not, but that's something science only learned in the past few hundred years; when that fire occurred it wouldn't have crossed the minds of anyone to make the patches obvious.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hugh or Charles,
- Do either of you guys think that there is any reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the carbon dating?

Let's just say that they do, arguendo. What are you going to do about the other seven billion of us?

 

[carlitos]

Let's just say that they do, arguendo. What are you going to do about the other seven billion of us?

I'm out. Congratulations to Mr. Savage. He wins.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, given that all of these objections have been dealt with and categorised as either spurious, unevidenced, incorrect and potentially libellous, we can confirm that there is no need to look at any other evidence for the case that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Now, now some of Jabba's objections fit into multiple categories, e.g. his complaints about the donation to Oxford are both inaccurate and slanderous.

Of course there's always the non-radiocarbon evidence and it's agreement with the radiocarbon dating...

 

[catsmate]

<snip>Oft handled section
<snip>

I'm still waiting on your description of the magic contamination and how exactly it survived the various cleaning techniques.

 

[hugh farey]

I'm getting behind here...

Ray Schneider's paper attempts to discredit the radiocarbon dating in three ways; first by examining the irregularity in the Nature paper itself, then by looking at three images of the radiocarbon area, and finally by correlating various gradients in those images with the different radiocarbon ages. In some cases his primary observations are correct, and in others false or deceptive, and in no case are his conclusions justified.

1) The Nature paper very properly calls attention to the circumstance that as reported by the laboratories, there is only a 1 in 20 chance that the three dates refer to the same piece of cloth. However, that does not mean that they need be rejected out of hand. An analogy may help. If a farmer sends three men to count the sheep in a field, and they return with 70, 72 and 65 (allowing for a sheep or two either way for miscounting), these numbers do not apparently concur. So what to do? Abandon the information altogether, or suspect that maybe the precision (a sheep or two either way) was not as great as suggested. Could there in fact be 250 sheep in the field? Or 14? Probably not. Making the best of a messy job, the farmer assumes that the counters were not as precise as they claimed, and makes an appropriate adjustment - maybe between 60 and 75. Probably not more or fewer. This is exactly what the Nature authors did. It is wholly untrue that the results are meaningless.

2) The Quad Mosaic photo (false coloured) shows a largely yellow and orange shroud, with a green corner which Schneider attributes to a different material. This is somewhat disingenuous, as this is only one quarter of a much larger photo. There are four of these Quad Mosaics covering the full length of the Shroud, and every one has a green corner. More importantly, every one also has a bright blue band across the top half. If the bottom left hand corners are indeed of a different material from the rest of the Shroud, then so are the four bright blue bands which cross the whole width of the material. A reductio ad absurdam, I think.

3) The next photo pretends to be a UV photo taken by Vernon Miller in 1978. Miller's photography is well detailed in his paper in the Journal of Biological Photography, and this photo does not even remotely resemble any of his. It is not a UV photo, and has curiously had the 'missing corner' section cropped away. I do not know its provenance.

4) Finally, we have another false colour photo, also in yellow and green, which purports, as before, to demonstrate that the different colours represent different materials. Although in this case, the 'missing corner', in the form of the backing cloth, is present. Sadly for the hypothesis, the part of the backing cloth which had been covered with the Raes section is bright white, showing that the colours do not represent different material at all.

5) Be that as it may, the end of the paper shows a couple of graphs. The first one shows, correctly, that the sample furthest from the edge of the Shroud (Arizona) produced the youngest age, and the sample closest to the edge of the Shroud (Oxford) produced the oldest. This in itself is odd, as it suggests that the edge of the Shroud is less contaminated than the interior, but it is also in direct contradiction with the following graph, which instead of showing an inversely proportional relationship between the alleged contamination and the age (the more the contamination, the less the age) in fact shows exactly the opposite (the more the contamination, the more the age). If there is any truth in these images, they show that any contamination of the Shroud had the effect of making it appear older than it really is, not younger.

So, although a paper produced by a professor of Mathematics may at first sight appear reasonable, a detailed study of it shows that his conclusions are not only based on faulty evidence, but even if taken as true, that the evidence in fact shows exactly the opposite of what was hypothesised.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/One in 20

I'm getting behind here...

Ray Schneider's paper attempts to discredit the radiocarbon dating in three ways; first by examining the irregularity in the Nature paper itself, then by looking at three images of the radiocarbon area, and finally by correlating various gradients in those images with the different radiocarbon ages. In some cases his primary observations are correct, and in others false or deceptive, and in no case are his conclusions justified.

1) The Nature paper very properly calls attention to the circumstance that as reported by the laboratories, there is only a 1 in 20 chance that the three dates refer to the same piece of cloth. However, that does not mean that they need be rejected out of hand. An analogy may help. If a farmer sends three men to count the sheep in a field, and they return with 70, 72 and 65 (allowing for a sheep or two either way for miscounting), these numbers do not apparently concur. So what to do? Abandon the information altogether, or suspect that maybe the precision (a sheep or two either way) was not as great as suggested. Could there in fact be 250 sheep in the field? Or 14? Probably not. Making the best of a messy job, the farmer assumes that the counters were not as precise as they claimed, and makes an appropriate adjustment - maybe between 60 and 75. Probably not more or fewer. This is exactly what the Nature authors did. It is wholly untrue that the results are meaningless.

Hugh,
- I don't think that your analogy is analogous.
- To make the sheep counting analogous, you'd need to get results of something like 10, 20 and 30 -- rendered by expert sheep counters. If that happened, you'd think that your expert counters must have gone to different fields!

 

[Dinwar]

To make the sheep counting analogous, you'd need to get results of something like 10, 20 and 30

So you are saying there is a 100% variation between ages. Just....wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin#Official_announcement

Official results:

Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
the unweighted mean was "691 ± 31 years", which corresponds to calibrated ages of "AD 1273 - 1288" with 68% confidence, and "AD 1262 - 1312, 1353 - 1384 cal" with 95% confidence.

Difference between maximum and minimum is 100 years (give or take). To put it another way, there's a 15% (roughly) variation between the numbers. Again, Jabba is comparing this to 100% variation.

Given the young age that's quite impressive, actually--there's not much daughter product to work with here and the ratio of C14 to C12/C13 won't have changed much, so we can expect more variation than in the technique's sweet spot. Still, we are much closer to hugh farey's analogy than to Jabba's, by an order of magnitude. If three people counted my sheep and got variation on that scale I'd be upset that they couldn't do better, but I'd know perfectly well I didn't have 2,000 sheep!

Please, please, PLEASE comment on the "calibrated ages" phrase. Pretty please? Oh, and the issue of what "present" is. That's always fun with people who know nothing about these techniques.