catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Even STURP didn't accept the pollen nonsense.
Any site that says "explore the mystery" has my spidey sense tingling. Reminds me of a catholic church service. Why do people love "mystery" so much more than facts?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Damn my feeble memory, old age, and the beer I had for breakfast.
I have indeed been remiss in failing to include Dinwar Dirtdigger in my magnanimousnessness.
Thank you, Dr D.
Thanks.
I do what I can. I agree with the pharaoh--you and catsmate1 have been a pleasure to read, and have provided far more information than me!
David Mo
Philosopher
Thanks
I mentioned this thread in my blog (http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/kuznetsov-el-sindonista-que-surgio-del-frio/) in the item about silver as catalyst. Footnote 1. Sorry I didn’t quote the names of all those who have provided some insight. It will be next time.
I mentioned this thread in my blog (http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/kuznetsov-el-sindonista-que-surgio-del-frio/) in the item about silver as catalyst. Footnote 1. Sorry I didn’t quote the names of all those who have provided some insight. It will be next time.
Last edited:
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
I think the main problem with carbon-dating the shroud is the that it and the entire subject have been contaminated with excessive amounts of ************.
As to all the claims that the shroud's carbon dating was done wrong. Had the exact same procedures been done - including the claimed flaws - and that Shroud ad been dated to the first century, does anyone honestly believe that those crying fowl now would have pointed up all the flaws, had the test gone their way?
As to all the claims that the shroud's carbon dating was done wrong. Had the exact same procedures been done - including the claimed flaws - and that Shroud ad been dated to the first century, does anyone honestly believe that those crying fowl now would have pointed up all the flaws, had the test gone their way?
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
I don't think the science matters to those who believe. While they attack the science, it's from a sense of obligation to their pre-existing beliefs, not out of desire to find the truth, because sometimes the truth is that pre-existing beliefs are wrong. I think there would be people still claiming the shroud's authenticity even if it was found to be made of nylon and painted with cheap finger-paint acrylics.
davefoc
Philosopher
No, I think it is pretty obvious that the C14-results-were-flawed theories are all the grasping at straws kind of thing that people who are deeply invested in shroud authenticity would be expected to created in the face of overwhelming evidence that the shroud doesn't date to the first century.
I think it is interesting to contemplate how the skeptics would have viewed the C14 results if they had pointed to the first century. Of course, a first century date for the shroud is still a long way from proving that the shroud was associated with the Jesus of the NT, that it was actually used as a shroud, that the image wasn't created by an artist, etc. And of course it would have no value as evidence of the supernatural at all. Still a C14 test result pointing to the first century would have been intriguing.
I, for one, would have been highly skeptical of the C14 test results if that had been the case. The evidence that the shroud is not of first century origin even without the C14 results is very strong and my guess would have been that the C14 test results were corrupted by some kind of collusion if they had pointed to the first century. I also might have looked a bit more kindly on the various ad hoc style theories that purport to show that the C14 test results were in error if the C14 test results had been inconsistent with what I see as very strong evidence a 14th century origin for the shroud.
I was hoping for an early date because then it would be possible to identify the Shroud with the Mandylion and other earlier artefacts, as Ian Wilson does (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa) and then you can dream up an exciting history for the object, full of ancient mysteries and Templar secrets, all of which is tremendous fun!
Just as a point of interest or a matter of principle - I'd be a little concerned if I thought you were in the habit of applying the above sort of logic to problems in general ...
... you appear to be regarding science no more reliable than other more subjective methods, and even suspecting that independent groups of research scientists might "collude" to deliberately invent a completely dishonest result.
But the very reason that science has become so important over the past few centuries, and particularly over the last century or so, is because it's results and its honesty/veracity are so vastly more accurate and reliable than non-scientific methods.
The only reason I'm drawing attention to that is because it's a very common position adopted by committed theists who almost always try to present science and scientific discoveries as little more than a matter of opinion which they are at liberty to treat as no more valid than their own opinions derived from religious faith.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
^
That.
Of course not.
Just as they didn't in this particular instance:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120615.html
Even though the lab used for this dating was one of the three used to date the TS.
I've never understood how anyone could doubt the evidence of three independent labs especially with the bill being footed by the Vatican.
Not to pry, but just how many times have you watched Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade this weekend?
That.
Of course not.
Just as they didn't in this particular instance:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120615.html
Even though the lab used for this dating was one of the three used to date the TS.
I've never understood how anyone could doubt the evidence of three independent labs especially with the bill being footed by the Vatican.
Not to pry, but just how many times have you watched Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade this weekend?
davefoc
Philosopher
The reason I mentioned it was because on one level it does seem to be hypocritical on my part.
I don't quite see it that way though. I would see the situation as one where there were two groups of facts each of which seemed to provide strong evidence for mutually exclusive possibilities. I believe I would have been very open to the possibility that there was something wrong with the evidence for either possibility.
To some degree, this goes to the minor disagreement I've had with the folks in this thread that see the C14 results as so reliable that it constitutes categorical proof of the medieval origin of the shroud. I think the evidence of a medieval origin of the shroud is categorical, and the C14 results are an important aspect of my view about that, but the C14 results by themselves would be insufficient for me to see the evidence as categorical.
There are at least three reasons why the C14 results could be wrong:
1. Collusion
2. Unknown problem with C14 dating accuracy
3. Errors during C14 testing
If the C14 test results had pointed to a first century date I would have seen the possibility of collusion as significant. People go to huge lengths to fake religious objects and the tourism value, alone, for the Turin with a shroud dated to the first century would have been enough to make me suspicious. In the current situation where the C14 test results point to a medieval date I am a lot less suspicious of the possibility of collusion because the incentives for collusion seem to be mostly at odds with the results.
Although, an unknown problem with C14 dating seems unlikely, there have been various problems discovered over the years with C14 testing and the possibility that there is another unknown one is not zero.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
The possibility of gravity stopping working tomorrow is also not zero. Science simply doesn't deal in things having zero possibility.
That doesn't make disputing the C14 dating reasonable. It's a reliable test. If evidence were to come out at some future date that there's reason to doubt these results because of some hitherto unknown problem with C14 dating techniques, then the results should be re-assessed. Until such a time, though, there is no reason not to accept them as true.
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
I essentially agree with this, but suppose that the C14 tests provided a result which was inconsistent with other very strong evidence. Certainly it would be reasonable to think about very unlikely possibilities to explain the discrepancy.
For me the issue is moot with respect to the shroud. The available reliable evidence is completely consistent with a medieval date and a medieval date was indicated by the C14 test results. No problem.
My guess is though, that periodically a C14 test has indicated a result completely inconsistent with the other evidence and a review of the evidence has found that the inconsistency was traced to a problem with the C14 testing, perhaps in the collecting of the samples, in the cleaning of the samples or in the execution of the tests. Even systematic C14 test errors might be possible such as the now well known discrepancy caused by fluctuating levels of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, and other now known problems such as the dating of marine samples or snails.
ETA: I particularly agreed with this. My claim that the possibility of something was non-zero was obvious and it wasn't a valid argument:
Last edited:
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
One reason I have confidence in the C14 testing was the labs involved tested not only the shroud sample but three other samples for which the dates were known. The tests were blinded: none of the labs knew which sample was which. All three labs came back with similar results for each sample.
There was a moment when the samples removed from the shroud were out of sight of many of the participants:
So it is possible the shroud samples were surreptitiously switched with thirteenth century samples while they were being wrapped in foil and sealed in stainless steel containers. Presumably the only person who might have an interest in doing do would be Dr M. S. Tite of the British Museum. I can't see the Archbishop of Turin doing this. Indeed, if the Archbishop wanted to do something underhanded he would have samples of first century linen with him and surreptitiously switch the shroud sample with it.
But I suspect that's why both of them were in that room: each could watch the other to ensure neither would switch the samples cut from the shroud.
As Dinwar pointed out, this was an extremely well documented sample-taking. Between that and the fact the three labs came up with very similar figures, despite somewhat different cleaning techniques, should remove all doubt over the veracity of the testing.
There was a moment when the samples removed from the shroud were out of sight of many of the participants:
(See http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm)Nature article "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin" said:
So it is possible the shroud samples were surreptitiously switched with thirteenth century samples while they were being wrapped in foil and sealed in stainless steel containers. Presumably the only person who might have an interest in doing do would be Dr M. S. Tite of the British Museum. I can't see the Archbishop of Turin doing this. Indeed, if the Archbishop wanted to do something underhanded he would have samples of first century linen with him and surreptitiously switch the shroud sample with it.
But I suspect that's why both of them were in that room: each could watch the other to ensure neither would switch the samples cut from the shroud.
As Dinwar pointed out, this was an extremely well documented sample-taking. Between that and the fact the three labs came up with very similar figures, despite somewhat different cleaning techniques, should remove all doubt over the veracity of the testing.
David Mo
Philosopher
Yes, no problem.
There isn’t “strong evidence” against the results of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin or an alternative to it. There isn’t any evidence at all. Suppositions, hypothesis ad hoc and non conclusive experiences have been arguing against it as “evidences”. The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is solid evidence. Some mistakes in radiocarbon dating were made in the past, it is true. But they are controlled in the present (they were also in 1988) and none of them affects the Shroud dating. In the last years I have made this question to sindonists: “Do you know any historical test done in the same conditions of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud?” Nobody has answered the question. Because the suppositions, hypothesis ad hoc and no conclusive experiences they call “evidences” are very fast in solidness and control than radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.
So, you can imagine some unknown, ideal and no definite circumstances than should refute the radiocarbon dating. Well, unknown circumstances can invalid every natural law, every human knowledge. But reason and science don’t work so. If you want to refute a law or some scientific knowledge you must propose an alternative, specific and testable hypothesis. Otherwise you are doing Science Fiction, not Science. Jus as sindonists do.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
The reason for the final wrapping being done in a separate room was a hold over from the older protocol where the labs were to be supplied with four sealed samples and not know which was from the shroud.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating/Smoking Guns?
Hi there!
- I'm currently trying to put together the context of your claim that the carbon dating was valid – and also, of my claim that it wasn't. I'm sure that you have no interest in such things, and it's taking a long time anyway, so I'm thinking that I'll try going off on a "brief" tangent…
- Part of my scheme for effective debate is that each side should look for potential "smoking guns" for its side and focus on them first – which might preclude some of the predicted tedium. So, that's what I'll try to do for the moment.
- We've already narrowed our focus to the CARBON DATING, so I'll focus on what seems to me the closest thing to a smoking gun against the validity of the dating. I'd suggest that you do the same for the validity of the dating -- you might want to make a list... I'm sure you don't want to listen to me, but I had to make those suggestions anyway….
- My smoking gun involves a few different pieces of evidence, and a line of what seems to me unassailable reasoning.
- In a sense, it “starts” with the claim that the image had to involve the use of a recently tortured and crucified human being. There are various reasons for coming to that conclusion -- but for me, the most telling is the interim conclusion that the image is covered with numerous imprints of wounds surrounded by serum clot retraction rings. If that conclusion is correct, we should be forced to then conclude that the image is an imprint of a real body of a recently tortured human being. The next two bits of evidence and attached reasoning concludes that the body was crucified, and that it had to be that of Jesus -- but, I'll save those for later.
- What I have so far are claims.
That these are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring (25) agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth (1,2,3). http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
- Adler was referring to the research and paper done by Miller and Pellicori as presented in the J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981). I’ll see if I can find the actual paper in the NY State Education Library.
The nearly unanimous conclusion of pathologists,physicians and anatomists who studied the Shroud since the beginning of the 20th century is that the Shroud wrapped a dead human body. In summary, the arterial
and venous blood flows on the head; the different types of bruises and swelling identified on the face; the flow of watery fluid from the pleural cavity and of blood from the right auricle, which fills with blood on death; the photographically revealed abrasions at the knees, nose and across the shoulder blades; the abnormally expanded rib cage indicating asphyxia; the enlarged pectoral or chest muscles drawn in toward the collarbone and arms; the contraction of the thumbs from an injury to the median nerve; the unusual signs of traumatic shock; the numerous signs of rigor mortis; the post-mortem bleeding; the microscopically precise, invisible reactions around more than 100 scourge marks throughout the body; the coagulated blood stains with serum surrounding borders and clot retraction rings that occur with actual wounds and blood flows, found throughout the front and back of the technology; and the identification of human hemoglobin, human albumin, human whole blood serum, human immunoglobins, and human DNA from the man’s blood marks —
are just some of the signs that the Shroud wrapped the body of a dead human male (Antonacci, 2000).
http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf
- In his book, Antonacci refers to several other documents.
- I’ll try to track those down if needs be.
--- Jabba
Hi there!
- I'm currently trying to put together the context of your claim that the carbon dating was valid – and also, of my claim that it wasn't. I'm sure that you have no interest in such things, and it's taking a long time anyway, so I'm thinking that I'll try going off on a "brief" tangent…
- Part of my scheme for effective debate is that each side should look for potential "smoking guns" for its side and focus on them first – which might preclude some of the predicted tedium. So, that's what I'll try to do for the moment.
- We've already narrowed our focus to the CARBON DATING, so I'll focus on what seems to me the closest thing to a smoking gun against the validity of the dating. I'd suggest that you do the same for the validity of the dating -- you might want to make a list... I'm sure you don't want to listen to me, but I had to make those suggestions anyway….
- My smoking gun involves a few different pieces of evidence, and a line of what seems to me unassailable reasoning.
- In a sense, it “starts” with the claim that the image had to involve the use of a recently tortured and crucified human being. There are various reasons for coming to that conclusion -- but for me, the most telling is the interim conclusion that the image is covered with numerous imprints of wounds surrounded by serum clot retraction rings. If that conclusion is correct, we should be forced to then conclude that the image is an imprint of a real body of a recently tortured human being. The next two bits of evidence and attached reasoning concludes that the body was crucified, and that it had to be that of Jesus -- but, I'll save those for later.
- What I have so far are claims.
That these are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring (25) agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth (1,2,3). http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
- Adler was referring to the research and paper done by Miller and Pellicori as presented in the J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981). I’ll see if I can find the actual paper in the NY State Education Library.
The nearly unanimous conclusion of pathologists,physicians and anatomists who studied the Shroud since the beginning of the 20th century is that the Shroud wrapped a dead human body. In summary, the arterial
and venous blood flows on the head; the different types of bruises and swelling identified on the face; the flow of watery fluid from the pleural cavity and of blood from the right auricle, which fills with blood on death; the photographically revealed abrasions at the knees, nose and across the shoulder blades; the abnormally expanded rib cage indicating asphyxia; the enlarged pectoral or chest muscles drawn in toward the collarbone and arms; the contraction of the thumbs from an injury to the median nerve; the unusual signs of traumatic shock; the numerous signs of rigor mortis; the post-mortem bleeding; the microscopically precise, invisible reactions around more than 100 scourge marks throughout the body; the coagulated blood stains with serum surrounding borders and clot retraction rings that occur with actual wounds and blood flows, found throughout the front and back of the technology; and the identification of human hemoglobin, human albumin, human whole blood serum, human immunoglobins, and human DNA from the man’s blood marks —
are just some of the signs that the Shroud wrapped the body of a dead human male (Antonacci, 2000).
http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf
- In his book, Antonacci refers to several other documents.
- I’ll try to track those down if needs be.
--- Jabba
- Status