HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Is there any evidence that the CiQ is ~2000 years old? No.
Is there any evidence that the CiQ is ~700 years old? Yes.
What's your problem?
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Is there any evidence that the CiQ is ~2000 years old? No.
Is there any evidence that the CiQ is ~700 years old? Yes.
What's your problem?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Dawkins' actual quote:
Another quote from Dawkins:
Characterising Dawkins as someone who does "not accept the carbon dating as final" is dishonest.
No he doesn't. He did revisit the tests in 2008 for a documentary, saying:
I can't find the results of the tests made explicit anywhere in any reference to the documentary (I'm not at home at the moment and can't email Dr. Ramsay, although I've seen evidence that he's open to communication on this mater. Could someone who is not Jabba email him and ask him what the outcome of the testing was, please?), but I think we can gather that they didn't overturn the previous results from this statement from Ramsay, made 3 years after the documentary aired:
To characterise him as someone who does "not accept the carbon dating as final" or someone who "thinks more testing is needed" is dishonest.
Name them.
This one I can't assess, as I don't have access to Nature articles. Here is the article, if someone with access could read it and post any relevant parts. There's more of the quote on Wikipedia:
My initial suspicion is the categorising Ball as someone who does "not accept the carbon dating as final" is dishonest.
Skewed the results, sure. I'm not convinced any of the contamination skewed the results sufficiently to be identifiable (again, anything within the error bars is invisible), but sure, it could happen.
That said, it amounts to a very, very minor point. It's a question of whether it was made in this or that MEDIEVAL time period. To characterize this as casting doubt on the C14 dating of the shroud is akin to saying that scientists doubt evolution because there's some debate as to the common ancestor of humans and chimps.
Another Creationist-esque element in this is the notion that once something enters into the scientific literature, it becomes eternal truth. Scientists understand that the literature is a dynamic place, and you always need to see if subsequent analysis has an affect on previous conclusions. Creationists, on the other hand, assume that once a scientist says "I have doubts about X" those doubts are eternal and can always be cited as proof that scientists doubt evolution. That's why they keep bringing up >100 year old papers. Similarly, Jabba seems to be presenting statements from the past, ignoring relevant subsequent discussion, and demanding we accept them as valid evidence for doubt--because hey, a scientist once said something, so that makes it true, right?
That said, it amounts to a very, very minor point. It's a question of whether it was made in this or that MEDIEVAL time period. To characterize this as casting doubt on the C14 dating of the shroud is akin to saying that scientists doubt evolution because there's some debate as to the common ancestor of humans and chimps.
Another Creationist-esque element in this is the notion that once something enters into the scientific literature, it becomes eternal truth. Scientists understand that the literature is a dynamic place, and you always need to see if subsequent analysis has an affect on previous conclusions. Creationists, on the other hand, assume that once a scientist says "I have doubts about X" those doubts are eternal and can always be cited as proof that scientists doubt evolution. That's why they keep bringing up >100 year old papers. Similarly, Jabba seems to be presenting statements from the past, ignoring relevant subsequent discussion, and demanding we accept them as valid evidence for doubt--because hey, a scientist once said something, so that makes it true, right?
I have access, but I will only quote a portion to keep to "fair use:"
"These issues were in fact addressed at the time of the initial report by one of the investigators, the late Teddy Hall of Oxford University (Archaeometry 31, 92–95; 1989). Hall pointed out that if the linen was truly 2,000 years old, it would have to be contaminated with as much as 40 percent of modern carbon to give the date measured. Moreover, the data did not vary between samples washed to different degrees. And tests on other samples of cloth gave unchanged dates for various degrees of scorching."
Also this is a "News and Views," essentially an editorial or letter-like article offering one person's opinion. It does not present any research data itself, and represents mostly a puff piece saying that despite the apparent accuracy of the 14C data, there are people who don't agree and therefore it would be great to test more of the Shroud, although that is very unlikely. I see this as a typical "Well of course we can't rule out magic or some exceedingly unlikely physical event, so if you are a believer, don't cancel your subscription."
Given I am posting again, if only briefly, I wish to point out that the source of the fire would determine which way any contamination would alter the radiocarbon dating. Coal or crude oil (did they use crude oil in the Medieval ages?) would very slightly age the sample. However wood would (sorry) probably make the sample look younger (I doubt any of the trees used for the wood in building the Church or fireplace were 2000 years old). I thought the proponents of the smoke theory were basing it on the wood fire that damaged the Shroud, or wood in fireplaces? In any case, the difference from the real age would be very small.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I do not believe oil was extensively used. I know of areas where oil naturally seeps up from the ground (Rancho La Brea is a spectacular example, but areas of Ohio and Pennsylvania do the same), so I imagine there were some areas like that in Europe (I'm not familiar with Europe's geology, outside a few Paleocene reefs). Coal was certainly present, and probably burned to a small extent. However, the Middle Ages seemed to focus on renewables--animal fats, wood, and the like--for its light and heat. Such fuels would result in an artificially low C14 date (ie, they'd introduce more parent isotopes than would otherwise be there).Giordano said:
All that said, to get sufficient contamination to produce a ~700 year age in a ~2ka cloth would require there to be more carbone from contamination sources than from the cloth. We did the math about two years ago; it's something like 45% original, 55% contamination if I'm not mistaken. So this isn't exactly a viable option.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
That is the single most credulous statement I have ever read.
I wish you had read and really considered my post re: closing statements.
In any case, if you want to vaguely refer to circumstantial evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, why should I be barred from presenting circumstantial evidence that it is 780 years old?
We know that counterfeiting relics was a popular money-making scheme in the middle ages.
We know that many people in the middle ages were illiterate and much better able to understand tangible evidence than philosophical discourse.
We know that the first recorded evidence of the existence of the shroud was in Turin, Italy in the middle ages.
We know the material on the shroud is consistent with the earthen pigments available in the middle ages.
We know that the weaving technique of the shroud was popular in the middle ages.
We know that all scientific studies of the shroud have dated it to the middle ages.
Why are you ignoring all this circumstantial evidence?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Well, that is a binary question, but it isn't the binary question that is addressed by the carbon dating.
The carbon dating addresses the binary question, "is the shroud about 800 years old or not?"
No amount of wishful thinking can make the carbon dating result address the binary question you want it to address.
The only way to address that question is to produce direct evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old. Something you have continually failed to do.
No amount of casting doubt on the carbon dating age, paint, weave pattern, anatomical correctness or scriptural accuracy can address that binary question.
I'm sorry Jabba, but your entire argument boils down to;
"Well, if the carbon dating is wrong, and if the shroud wasn't painted, and if the wounds are scripturally accurate, and if the anatomical features are correct, then maybe, just maybe, it could possibly be the shroud that Jesus was wrapped in."
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Actually, his whole argument boils down to "all the evidence that shows that the shroud is not authentic is probably wrong."
Slight disagreement: The C14 dating wasn't binary. The question was "How old is the shroud?" We had a few general ideas about how old it was (enough to provide samples within the hypothesized age ranges for comparison and verification of the machinery and methods), but there was no presumption that the shroud would fall within any of those ranges; whatever the results were, they were.wollery said:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
True, if you consider the probability of what date the carbon dating would give a priori. However, a posteriori it becomes a binary question of whether or not the dating is accurate. If it is then the shroud is around 800 years old, if it isn't then we return to the state of affairs prior to the carbon dating result- that we have no firm knowledge of the date.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Even if we throw out the carbon dating, we have lots of evidence that points to a Middle Ages date, and zero evidence that points to a first century date. So while we may not have firm knowledge of a date, we have zero reason to consider a first century date.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/BinaryQuestion
- It can if my wish is for evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
True, and the carbon dating rules out the possibility of it being 2000 years old. Which is why you're desperately trying to get those results tossed out, and ignoring all the other evidence which indicates that the shroud is not 2000 years old. And, your failing to produce a single piece of evidence that would actually date it to 2000 years has made it clear that your belief in authenticity is shattered.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Yes, we know you wish that. The thing is that there's no evidence that supports your wish. Your belief is unfounded in reality. Your arguments are baseless. Your foregone conclusion is not an accepted argument. I could go on...
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
That's our wish - for you to provide evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old. So far you have been unable to do it.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Oh dear. No.
You can wish for it, but that doesn't make it so. That was kind of my point.
Did you once mention that you had taken a course in logic? If so then I suggest that you review your course notes, or a basic textbook.
- Status