Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[catsmate]

Apologies for the delayed responses, I was limited to my phone yesterday.

Ah- luckily the full tex New Scientist "article" was available from by University.
1. It is not a research article at all- it is a report of a conference and it is approximately half a page in length. There are no experiments or data in it.

2. The author is a reporter and not a scientist. He has no experience in radioisotope dating even in that capacity.

3. The concerns mentioned from the conference are not detailed, apparently involve data from "some" laboratories participating in the conference, appear to be most severe for objects less than 200 years old, and the article and conference do not implicate any of the labs involved in the Shroud dating as having had this problem.

4. These undetailed potential errors must not have been a problem with the labs in the Nature paper because these errors would have caused much wider error bars and much more disagreement between the 3 independent labs in the Shroud study. The close match of the data indicates that these potential errors, which only apparently applied to certain labs and to very young material, were not a problem with the Shroud testing.

5. Finally, even if somehow these errors did apply to the Shroud dating, even the extra error bars would still create a range of dates that fall hundreds of years too early for an authentic Shroud of Christ.

I persuaded someone to dig out the SERC conference notes and it seems they were concerned mainly the the spread of AMS, with it's high sensitivity, wasn't being followed by improved awareness of the problems of sample contamination.
Here is the New Scientist article via Google Books. It's a half page report and you are completely right about it.

C14 is generated from N14 (mostly, anyway; other sources are negligible until proven otherwise). <snip>

Magical resurrection neutrons!!

I want to emphasize that this is completely, 100% irrelevant as well (not that you're wrong to point it out!).

EPA guidelines call for 10% sample duplication--field dups, in common parlance. That means 1 out of every 10 samples gets duplicated, to test for reproducibility.

The shroud had 11 duplicates, in three labs. This is so far above and beyond normal that they could do a quarter of this and STILL exceed normal procedures.

Furthermore, such alterations to sample plans are the norm. Most sample plans I have worked under include provisions for allowing for alterations due to site conditions--increased or decreased numbers of samples based on what you seen when you're "boots on the ground", so to speak. So none of this deviates from normal procedures, except in as much as it exceeds normal procedures by leaps and bounds!

As for not allowing further sampling, this is the norm. These days destructive testing is almost never done. And once it's been done (and replicated to death), no one will re-do the sampling. That's just SOP. To use that as an excuse to dismiss the results merely shows that one has no concept of the issues involved.

I'd like to add, regarding the oft invoked "contamination" that the labs further split their samples and used a number of different decontamination regimes, yet the samples matched each on in dating very well.

Time is a factor. Why would I want to read a dull turgid paper 1986 when I can catch up on topics that interest me?.

And yet you're willing to cite this half page article as nagating the radiocarbon dating of the cloth?

 

[Mashuna]

Monza,

- Still trying to nail down our exact divergence.
- This is where it gets tedious. I just claim that some tedium is necessary in order to actually get somewhere in debate. Too often, we don't really understand what our opponent is saying.
- I'll try again to show my logic.

- In order to accept that the sudarium strengthens the case for the shroud being 2000 years old (and that the carbon dating of the shroud is significantly off the mark), we also have to accept that the carbon dating of the sudarium is significantly off the mark. And, this need to add such a caveat reduces the probability that the shroud is 2000.
- In other words, by accepting the alleged match, we do, in fact, add weight to the not 2000 yrs old side. Agreed.
- I just claim that by accepting a match -- and thereby negating the carbon dating of the shroud -- we subtract more weight from that side than we add to that side.
- If I am correct that there is some weight on the 2000 yr side, the tilt of our scales is affected towards the 2000 yr side.

I think this is entirely logical. It's like how my sister and I are 3 year-old twins. You can see the similarities between us, so it's very likely we're twins. As long as you ignore the evidence that we're clearly not three, and that our ages are a decade apart, why, it's practically proven!

 

[zooterkin]

- In order to accept that the sudarium strengthens the case for the shroud being 2000 years old (and that the carbon dating of the shroud is significantly off the mark), we also have to accept that the carbon dating of the sudarium is significantly off the mark. And, this need to add such a caveat reduces the probability that the shroud is 2000.

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

 

[Dinwar]

The piece (you can see it here) is basically a report on a conference presentation warning about the need for proper controls and an awareness of the danger of contamination. AMS was still new, but spreading, and a few labs weren't as careful as they should have been.

Not an uncommon thing--I can show you examples of such discussions (and fairly lengthy papers of the same sort) for pretty much any method you care to name in science. These are vital discussions, in as much as they explore the limits of the available methodology and allow for more accurate interpretations. Plus, they kick us in our backsides and make sure we're doing what we are supposed to. As my old Isotopic Geochem professor said, we are not trained monkeys, we actually need to think about our results!

Vixen, assuming you are at least somewhat honest, think of such discussions this way: There is a baseball stadium. A bunch of pitchers get together to discuss how best to throw a ball into the strike zone. One of them says "The technique you're using is good, but it tends to drift to the left. You need to be aware of that, because it can affect whether or not you should use that technique for certain hitters, and if hte wind is blowing to the left it can push the ball outside the strike zone." THAT is what those conferences are like: highly-trained experts discussing extremely technical implications of certain methods.

To abuse this analogy a bit: Shroud believers attempting to cast doubt on the C14 dating are akin to a bunch of people who are throwing footballs into the bleachers from right field, and who say that since the experts are debating how to pitch we can dismiss the expert opinion and accept that throwing footballs into bleechers from right field is the best way to pitch in baseball.

 

[zooterkin]

Just a hunch. Say the Turin Shroud belonged to you. You would be curious to test its authenticity. You might want to do it privately to satisfy yourself. It's yours to do what you like.

If authentic you would be inviting world scientists to see for themselves.

It already has been tested, publicly. Why test it again?

 

[Belz...]

- If I am correct that there is some weight on the 2000 yr side, the tilt of our scales is affected towards the 2000 yr side.

You're not correct. Face it: This is entirely a matter of faith for you. Fine, but don't pretend that there's any factual element to it.

 

[Belz...]

It already has been tested, publicly. Why test it again?

If we test it over and over, maybe we'll get a 2000 year result eventually, and then we can ignore the other results and worship the... oops ! There's nothing of the Shroud left.

 

[catsmate]

Not an uncommon thing--I can show you examples of such discussions (and fairly lengthy papers of the same sort) for pretty much any method you care to name in science. These are vital discussions, in as much as they explore the limits of the available methodology and allow for more accurate interpretations. Plus, they kick us in our backsides and make sure we're doing what we are supposed to. As my old Isotopic Geochem professor said, we are not trained monkeys, we actually need to think about our results!

Absolutely! In recent years there has been some disquiet about DNA analysis in criminal cases due to contamination; the spread of LCN techniques, which are highly sensitive including to contamination, is an excellent parallel to AMS. The first adopters, and when the shroud was tested I believe there less than a dozen facilities worldwide using AMS, were careful (many had participated in the development of the technique) but as it spread others were less careful.

To abuse this analogy a bit: Shroud believers attempting to cast doubt on the C14 dating are akin to a bunch of people who are throwing footballs into the bleachers from right field, and who say that since the experts are debating how to pitch we can dismiss the expert opinion and accept that throwing footballs into bleechers from right field is the best way to pitch in baseball.

Exactly.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

Why would the hospitalier knights of the crusade have bothered preserving it as a relic.

Relics were an important part of worship at the time. Thousands of relics were exhibited in those centuries, by far the most of them fakes.

--snip--

Quote just for this portion (your quote of Vixen). The more important point is that there is no good evidence that the Hospitaller Knights actually did preserve it as a relic.

 

[Loss Leader]

- In order to accept that the sudarium strengthens the case for the shroud being 2000 years old (and that the carbon dating of the shroud is significantly off the mark), we also have to accept that the carbon dating of the sudarium is significantly off the mark. And, this need to add such a caveat reduces the probability that the shroud is 2000.
- In other words, by accepting the alleged match, we do, in fact, add weight to the not 2000 yrs old side. Agreed.
- I just claim that by accepting a match -- and thereby negating the carbon dating of the shroud -- we subtract more weight from that side than we add to that side.
- If I am correct that there is some weight on the 2000 yr side, the tilt of our scales is affected towards the 2000 yr side.

This is complete gibberish.

The fact that the shroud is too young to be authentic makes it more likely to be authentic?

I strongly suggest that you ask yourself whether you're logically considering the evidence or whether you are dancing as fast as you can in a desperate effort to avoid confronting the evidence.

 

[Belz...]

This is complete gibberish.

It's Jabbarish.

 

[Dinwar]

- In order to accept that the sudarium strengthens the case for the shroud being 2000 years old (and that the carbon dating of the shroud is significantly off the mark), we also have to accept that the carbon dating of the sudarium is significantly off the mark.

There's no reason to make this assumption. The fact that you need to dismiss data to accept that these two cloths are a match should be a reason to discard the idea there is a match, NOT the carbon dating.

 

[Mojo]

- In order to accept that the sudarium strengthens the case for the shroud being 2000 years old (and that the carbon dating of the shroud is significantly off the mark), we also have to accept that the carbon dating of the sudarium is significantly off the mark.

If we accept that the carbon dating of the Sudarium is "significantly off the mark", then it is possible that the Sudarium is around 700 years old. This would agree perfectly with the carbon dating of the shroud.

 

[Belz...]

If we accept that the carbon dating of the Sudarium is "significantly off the mark", then it is possible that the Sudarium is around 700 years old. This would agree perfectly with the carbon dating of the shroud.

This is the kind of reasoning we see from conspiracy theorists and creationists: they think that if only they can cast doubt on the opponent's theory, theirs becomes truer by default.

 

[Mojo]

This is the kind of reasoning we see from conspiracy theorists and creationists: they think that if only they can cast doubt on the opponent's theory, theirs becomes truer by default.

I have a slight concern that Jabba might think that I'm making an argument myself here rather than pointing out a flaw in his.

 

[Monza]

Monza,

- Still trying to nail down our exact divergence.
- This is where it gets tedious. I just claim that some tedium is necessary in order to actually get somewhere in debate. Too often, we don't really understand what our opponent is saying.
- I'll try again to show my logic.

- In order to accept that the sudarium strengthens the case for the shroud being 2000 years old (and that the carbon dating of the shroud is significantly off the mark), we also have to accept that the carbon dating of the sudarium is significantly off the mark. And, this need to add such a caveat reduces the probability that the shroud is 2000.
- In other words, by accepting the alleged match, we do, in fact, add weight to the not 2000 yrs old side. Agreed.
- I just claim that by accepting a match -- and thereby negating the carbon dating of the shroud -- we subtract more weight from that side than we add to that side.
- If I am correct that there is some weight on the 2000 yr side, the tilt of our scales is affected towards the 2000 yr side.

I understand what you are saying, it is just that it is completely illogical. You want to show the shroud is older than 700 years by linking it to another artifact that is 1300 years old, but then you want us to ignore that this other artifact is 1300 years old. Your approach is not to provide evidence of the shroud's age. Rather, you say if we can ignore all other evidence that points to a younger age and pretend that we don't know anything about its age, then why can't we pretend it is 2000 years old?

Do you see the fragile connections you are trying to make?
If the carbon dating of the SoT is wrong, and...
if the SoT is an actual burial shroud, and...
if the SoT touched the same face as the SoO, and...
if the carbon dating of the SoO is wrong, and...
if we ignore the lack of 1300 years of provenance for the SoT, and...
if we ignore the lack of 600 years of provenance for the SoO, then...
we don't know what the age is, so it might as well be 2000 years old.

This is not logical. And has been pointed out, it is not a binary question. The Shroud of Turin is not either 700 years old or 2000 years old such that lack of evidence for one is additional evidence for the other. There is no scale. There are multiple potential dates for the shroud. That is why I asked for evidence that the shroud is the age you believe. Someone else may think the shroud is 1100 years old, and they are welcome to present evidence for that. This is why I asked for your evidence that points toward a 2000 year old date rather than reasons not to accept evidence toward another date.

So let's start again with evidence toward a date of the shroud. I'll add another to my previous piece of evidence. Anyone else is free to add their evidence too.


Evidence toward a 14th century date:
1. The linen of the shroud was radiocarbon dated, and determined to have been made around 1260-1390 AD.
2. The earliest historical record of the shroud is from the year 1390.

Evidence toward a 1st century date:
<Jabba, or anyone else, to add evidence here.>

Evidence toward any other date:
1. The shroud is believed to have touched the same face as the Sodarium of Oviedo, which dates to around 600 AD.

 

[Belz...]

I understand what you are saying, it is just that it is completely illogical. You want to show the shroud is older than 700 years by linking it to another artifact that is 1300 years old

Maybe he thinks we can add the ages to get 2000 ?

 

[Giordano]

I will try to explain by using one of Jabba's analogies (no not tennis or baseball, but balances):

I have a 1300 gm weight on the left side of the balance. You have a object on the right side that almost all the evidence indicates weights nothing, but you claim it weighs 2000 gms. You see that the balance nonetheless leans all the way over to the 1300 gm weight. You recognize that to support your claim that there is 2000 gms on the right you have to somehow deal with the obvious effect on the balance of the 1300 gm weight on the left, an effect that clearly invalidates your claim. You now suggest that by putting an additional 700 gm weight on the left, the balance then would lean a little less to the left? Think about it. The 700 gm weight is on the wrong side and only further invalidates your argument.

In any case, you claimed that the question was binary: is the Shroud 2000 years old or not? With just the carbon dating of the Shroud, the answer is no. Adding the carbon dating of the SoO, together with your unconvincing proposal that they are linked, makes the answer even more clearly no because you now have two pieces (actual more than that based on the number of times the carbon dating was performed) of documentation that say "not 2000 years."

 

[Vixen]

So the fact that this sample was more thofroughly duplicated than any pretty much ever isn't relevant.

By this logic ALL carbon dating must be discarded. Speaking as someone who has done it (charcoal in anthroposols), I can assure you that 99% or more of samples are not tested 10% as well as this one.

You have presented no criticisms of the method. You have presented no substantive criticisms of the sample choice (ie, nothing that would affect the outcome). You have presented no reason to doubt the C14 dating. And if that date is true, nothing else matters.

You have also not presented any evidence that this mystical chin strap existed, much less that it would result in the image on the shroud. Plus....well, everything else.

There is more to the argument than carbon dating. I have a layman's knowledge of carbon dating and according to several posters, I am therefore barred from even discussing the Turin Shroud.

I get that it's boring for "experts" to debate with people they see as unqualified.

If we were in C18, likely the "expert scientists" will be arrogantly demanding any contributor to the forum must accept there are "exactly 5,083 stars in the sky", when the Bible correctly states they are innumerable.

Here endeth moral for today.

 

[Giordano]

There is more to the argument than carbon dating. I have a layman's knowledge of carbon dating and according to several posters, I am therefore barred from even discussing the Turin Shroud.

I get that it's boring for "experts" to debate with people they see as unqualified.

If we were in C18, likely the "expert scientists" will be arrogantly demanding any contributor to the forum must accept there are "exactly 5,083 stars in the sky", when the Bible correctly states they are innumerable.

Here endeth moral for today.

I have appreciated your posts which I interpreted as your willingness to recognize some of the errors in your understanding of the radioisotope dating. You also appeared to accept that the anatomy of the image on the cloth was unlikely to be that of a real individual. This is refreshing, especially in this thread. I even interpreted one of your posts as recognizing that the Church surely must have quietly retested the 14C date on the Shroud in the past 25 years, and would have widely revealed the result if it had been capable with the 30 AD legend. So this hypothetical dating probably did not contradict the public dating; I suspect that you are correct if I am interpreting your logic correctly.

But if you can't come up with a good scientific reason to reject the extremely carefully performed and controlled radioisotopic dating of the Shroud to 1300 AD, then you must recognize that any other issue is completely mute in terms of the Shroud being the burial cloth of Christ. It doesn't matter if it is a painting, or if the blood is real blood. It simply can't be the burial cloth of Christ. Now if you accept the cloth as a Medieval product, but simply wish to discuss how it might have been made, then there is no reason for you not to continue.