Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Craig4]

Monza,
- If we can accept that the carbon dating is wrong, the tilt of the seesaw is shifted enormously. Also, there is circumstantial evidence that the sudarium is of first century origin.

Why? You haven't even called the testing into question. The samples were cleaned, there's no evidence for a patch, all three labs gave similar date ranges. Where is the doubt? You're not still stuck on the lack of an archeologist in the group that took the sample are you?

However lets say it's wrong. The options then are the 13th century or nothing. Do you not find it the least compelling the the CIQ carbon dated to close to the date it appears? If you don't have the carbon date we just have the documented history which does not support a 1st century CE date.

 

[jond]

Monza,
- If we can accept that the carbon dating is wrong, the tilt of the seesaw is shifted enormously. Also, there is circumstantial evidence that the sudarium is of first century origin.

No it doesn't. If the carbon dating is wrong, the ONLY thing that says is that the ~1300CE date might not be correct.

Here's an example of circumstantial evidence about the date of the shroud: the weave of the cloth is not known to have been used in the first century. Unfortunately for you, this means that it is extremely unlikely that it could be dated to the first century even if the carbon dating is correct.

Now: what have you got for evidence that would positively indicate a first century date of the shroud?

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,
- Just in case you missed that post ... what are your thoughts re painting?

It doesn't matter. The CIQ is not old enough to be authentic.

 

[John Jones]

Monza,
- If we can accept that the carbon dating is wrong, the tilt of the seesaw is shifted enormously. Also, there is circumstantial evidence that the sudarium is of first century origin.

There is no seesaw. Even if ¹⁴C dating were a fairy tale, that is not evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Belz...]

Hugh,
- Just in case you missed that post ... what are your thoughts re painting?

Stop stalling. Please provide direct evidence for the 2000 year age of the shroud now.

If we can accept that the carbon dating is wrong, the tilt of the seesaw is shifted enormously.

NO !

People have explained this to you already. It shifts the "seesaw" not one bit.

Please provide direct evidence for the 2000 year age of the shroud now.

 

[Mojo]

- If we can accept that the carbon dating is wrong, the tilt of the seesaw is shifted enormously.

No, it would only tell us that the carbon dating is wrong. It wouldn't tell us in which direction it was wrong (IIRC it has already been pointed out that at least one of your supposed flaws in the carbon dating would point towards a date younger, not older, than what the carbon dating found), or how many years out it was. In fact, even if the carbon dating was totally borked it wouldn't exclude the cloth beng around 700 years old; even a stopped clock shows the right time twice a day.

And in any case you have failed to provide any good reason for supposing that the carbon dating is unreliable.

I think you are trying to conflate two different things being shifted towards something here. You are talking about shifting a nonsensical "seesaw" towards your desired conclusion, while also trying to shift the age towards 2000 years by bringing in the 7th century Sudarium of Oviedo. Shifting the age towards around 2000 years old (as you seem to be doing with your allusions to the Sudarium) is not enough. If the alleged shroud is the same age as the Sudarium, it is still not remotely old enough to have been Christ's shroud. You need to shift it all the way to the first century.

The age of the shroud can only be shifted to the required age by evidence that it is around 2000 years old.

You said that you have evidence that it is around 2000 years old. Please present it.

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- If we can accept that the carbon dating is wrong, the tilt of the seesaw is shifted enormously. Also, there is circumstantial evidence that the sudarium is of first century origin.

Well, no. Once again you are considering this a binary question and it is not. Your seesaw analogy is flawed. If there is less evidence of a particular date, it does not shift toward another particular date. If it did, why don't you assume the actual date is around 560 AD? It is just as valid.

But in reality, there is no reason to assume that the carbon dating is wrong.

 

[Jabba]

My Way/Painting

Hugh,

I guess I should start with the following.

- I should try again to explain my logic re my current conclusion about the shroud -- my conclusion being that the shroud is probably authentic (and therefore, about 2000 years old).
- For now (it might change), that's my "ultimate conclusion." I came to that conclusion based upon "intermediate conclusions" (however much Dinwar disputes my wording).
- I do need to revise my list of "intermediate conclusions" however, as the first two on my original list are not at the same level/layer as the others on that list -- they support what is now #1. As I scour my head for my reasons for thinking that the shroud really is 2000 years old, the current list will surely change.

1. The image on the shroud is an imprint of a dead body.
--- The shroud is not a painting.
--- The stains are real blood.
2. The details are consistent with scourging and crucifixion.
3. The stains on the shroud depict the injuries that the Gospels report.
4. Even today, no scientist or artist can fully replicate the shroud.
5. There is nothing like it in all of ancient art.
6. The carbon dating (of the 14th century) is suspect.
7. The documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century. However, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.
--- The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud, and the Sudarium has a documented history going back to at least700 AD.
8. If it was done by an artist, the artist would have been a genius beyond Da Vinci.

- Anyway, my contention is that if my intermediate conclusions listed so far are correct, the shroud probably IS 2000 years old -- and, surely I'll remember more supportive intermediate conclusions as I scour my head and previous writings.
- Whatever, the actual "evidence" is at the bottom of the pyramid, and I'm trying to work my way down to it -- and report it. That's what I've been doing re the links I've provided so far -- and, you'll see that I've provided lots of links over the past three years. You guys just think that you've refuted them all. But, I disagree -- you have refuted some of them, but mostly you've presented arguments against them, and I just haven't had time to present what would be my retorts.


- I have more reasons (intermediate conclusions) for believing that a real dead body is involved, but these other reasons -- like the first two -- are at a different level/layer than the other reasons on this list.

- To that, I would add the following.
9. Numerous respected scholars do not accept the carbon dating as final. For example, from http://shroudstory.com/:
...Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial.
...Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists.
...Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.”

- But anyway, I would like to start by asking questions re your positions on various sub-issues -- the likelihood that the image was painted being the first one.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/Sudarium

Well, no. Once again you are considering this a binary question and it is not. Your seesaw analogy is flawed....

Monza,
- The question is binary: Is the shroud about 2000 years old, or not?

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,

I guess I should start with the following.



- To that, I would add the following.
9. Numerous respected scholars do not accept the carbon dating as final. For example, from http://shroudstory.com/:
...Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial.
...Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists.
...Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.”

- But anyway, I would like to start by asking questions re your positions on various sub-issues -- the likelihood that the image was painted being the first one.

None of that palaver supports a 2000 year old CIQ. Hell, I'd like to see more testing done, if only to shut the mouths of pathologically credulous Bleevers in the Authenticity of the Turin Tablecloth. A piece about 14 feet long and 3 feet wide would be an adequate sample size.

 

[jond]

Monza,
- The question is binary: Is the shroud about 2000 years old, or not?

The answer is NO. There is zero evidence indicating the shroud is 2000 years old, and volumes of evidence which indicates that it is not. End of debate. Thanks!

 

[Stuart]

Monza,
- If we can accept that the carbon dating is wrong, the tilt of the seesaw is shifted enormously. Also, there is circumstantial evidence that the sudarium is of first century origin.

[lurk off]
It isn’t a yes / no, balance, see saw answer.
If you think better in analogies, try this one (although flawed it is the best I can think of)
You are told that a magnetic compass has been aligned with its pointer to the N. You are now told that your previous information could be flawed and the pointer may not be aligned to the N. Can you say with any degree of certainty the position of the needle in relation to the N on the compass?

[lurk on]

By the way you have yet to convince this lurker of anything.

 

[Dinwar]

Monza,
- If we can accept that the carbon dating is wrong, the tilt of the seesaw is shifted enormously. Also, there is circumstantial evidence that the sudarium is of first century origin.

1) There is no evidence indicating that the C14 dating is wrong. NOTHING you have presented in this thread or the previous one has any bearing on the validity of the C14 dating.

2) Even if we reject the C14 dating, you are still left with the fact that every datum--from the weave to the painting style to the fact that it only enters into the historical record around the time the C14 dating says it was made--indicates a Medieval age.

9. Numerous respected scholars do not accept the carbon dating as final.

And I should care why? I am more than qualified to make my own evaluation of the data. I've worked with C14 dating, along with other dating techniques and other isotopic families. The fact that others disagree is irrelevant. For example, Dawkins is a biologist; there's no reason to think he's any more knowledgeable about C14 dating than any other biologist. (In contrast, I'm a paleontologist who's done archaeological work--the stuff C14 is particularly good at.)

Secondly, EVERY scientist is going to call for more testing. That's what we DO. I note that you don't list the nature of those tests, however. What they want to test could be quite telling.

As for "controversial", it's a meaningless term. It doesn't mean that anyone has generated controversy; it merely means that people are debating it. It has nothing to do with the validity of the C14 dating.

IIRC it has already been pointed out that at least one of your supposed flaws in the carbon dating would point towards a date younger, not older, than what the carbon dating found

I think that's the one where he argued that smoke from burning materials could shift the C14 date. It's almost certainly non-significant, but "dead" carbon from coal or oil could shift the date a little bit towards looking older than it really is (anything less then the error bars is invisible, so we probably couldn't even see the results). There are also affects involving transfer between the water and atmosphere that would makie it look older than it really is, IF the plants were aquatic.

 

[Pixel42]

Monza,
- The question is binary: Is the shroud about 2000 years old, or not?

No, the question is: How old is the shroud?

We have lots of evidence that it's about 700 years old. Even if you were to succeed in casting doubt on one particularly compelling piece of that evidence, the carbon dating, (and you have yet to do so) that wouldn't make one iota of difference to the evidence that it is 2000 years old. Which would remain zero.

 

[Mojo]

Hugh,

I guess I should start with the following.

And so soon after the last fringe reset.

 

[Mojo]

- The question is binary: Is the shroud about 2000 years old, or not?

Yes, but that isn't the 'binary question' you are proposing. Your binary question is "is the carbon dating correct, or is the shroud about 2000 years old?" And this question is a false dilemma.

 

[Belz...]

I guess I should start with the following.

NO !

You should start with direct evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

So far you have points that _may_, if true, introduce doubt in the "700 years old" conclusion. You have no excuse at this point. This has been pointed out to you numerous times: doubting the 700 figure does not make the 2000 figure, or ANY figure, more likely.

Please provide direct evidence for the 2000 year age of the shroud now.

 

[John Jones]

And so soon after the last fringe reset.

I was thinking the same. Is that a record?

 

[Mojo]

I think that's the one where he argued that smoke from burning materials could shift the C14 date. It's almost certainly non-significant, but "dead" carbon from coal or oil could shift the date a little bit towards looking older than it really is (anything less then the error bars is invisible, so we probably couldn't even see the results). There are also affects involving transfer between the water and atmosphere that would makie it look older than it really is, IF the plants were aquatic.

I had a feeling it was to do with some of the carbon coming from chalk the cloth had been sized with.

 

[Dinwar]

I had a feeling it was to do with some of the carbon coming from chalk the cloth had been sized with.

Ah, could be that too. He's tried both. Same principle applies, though: contamination from "dead" carbon would artificially increase the age (by diluting the C14), meaning that such contamination (if it weren't removed, which it was) would mean that the shroud is actually younger than the C14 dates indicate.