• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally, I don't think it matters whether all 21 scientists were young earth creationists or hard atheists or anything in between - as long as they followed the scientific method and performed the work they were tasked to do objectively.


Well said. Jabba keeps going on about bias in the scientists conducting the C14 testing. Ignoring the objectivity of the testing for now, it should be noted that the scientific method actually accounts for humans being biased. This is why testing methods are derived to remove the effect of bias. Whether by blinding, repeatability, objective measurement, or something else, the entire protocol of a proper test accounts for and minimizes (if not eliminates) personal bias. So it matters not what the personal wishes of any particular scientist was. Such wishes did not, in fact could not, affect the results.
 
Garrette,
- Even if I am technically wrong about that, I still don't think there is any reason to apologize.
- And also, I need to understand some things first in order to accept that I am technically wrong about it. For instance, how are control samples used in calibration?
--- Jabba


Regarding the first point, there certainly is reason to apologize. Your statement cast aspersions against people and muddied the waters for any of your impartial jurors reading this thread. There is no shame in being wrong or apologizing for a poor statement. In fact, it takes integrity to do so. WWJD?

For the second point, perhaps it would have been better to understand the topic first before making such a bold (and as you later admitted, wrong) statement.
 
- And wouldn't you expect a significant majority of 21 carbon dating scientists to not believe in the supernatural?

Not that it's relevant to the dating, but you do raise an interesting question. Your assumption is that educated, intelligent men and women would not believe in the supernatural. Now, why do you think that might be?
 
Not that it's relevant to the dating, but you do raise an interesting question. Your assumption is that educated, intelligent men and women would not believe in the supernatural. Now, why do you think that might be?
:D Nice catch.


Speaking before a conservative audience at the annual Values Voter Summit Saturday, former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said that conservatives “will never have the elite smart people on our side.”
 
Well said. Jabba keeps going on about bias in the scientists conducting the C14 testing. Ignoring the objectivity of the testing for now, it should be noted that the scientific method actually accounts for humans being biased. This is why testing methods are derived to remove the effect of bias. Whether by blinding, repeatability, objective measurement, or something else, the entire protocol of a proper test accounts for and minimizes (if not eliminates) personal bias. So it matters not what the personal wishes of any particular scientist was. Such wishes did not, in fact could not, affect the results.
Exactly and has already been stated (and I have little reason to doubt these statements) that the scientists in question thought that the shroud would have been a "cooler" or "neater" find had it been dated to the first century. Apparently, there is very little that has survived from that time period and it would have shown many things that scientists have thought about cloth making in the period (for a simple example) as needing correction or further study.

So, from a scientific viewpoint, it's too bad that it isn't from the first century.
 
<snip>And then, of course, I want to believe all that...

And there's the problem. You want to believe so much that you claim whatever you think you need to claim to make sure you believe, while ignoring all evidence that you're wrong, because paying it any attention would mean you wouldn't believe anymore.

Impartiality is one of the most important traits a person should have. What matters isn't whether you like a claim, or how much it would benefit you to be true or not; all that matters is the truth.

The truth is that the shroud of Turin is medieval. This truth is verified by radiometric dating, comparing the fibers of the shroud to fibers used both in the first century and the correct date, and an historical analysis of the time, apparently even including a confession by the artist who made it.

I wouldn't care if the shroud were from the first century. In that case, it would be the cloth a dead guy was buried in. It doesn't prove anything, except that someone died and was buried wrapped in this cloth. Not exactly special.
 
I wouldn't care if the shroud were from the first century. In that case, it would be the cloth a dead guy was buried in. It doesn't prove anything, except that someone died and was buried wrapped in this cloth. Not exactly special.

Even if it were dated to the first century, it wouldn't necessarily be the cloth a dead guy was buried in. There are way too many problems with the image to think it was a real imprint of a dead guy. As has been pointed out (and ignored) countless times in the thread.
 
Yes, those "120 points" don't appear to be documented. I find no examples of micro-photographs of the Sudarium to compare the weave or other details.

On a little further investigoogling, I find that the Sudarium is described as a taffeta (perpendicular warp and woof) while the Shroud is a herringbone weave. Microscopically, the Sudarium appears consistent with linens of its claimed approximate age.

Indeed. I think decontamination would be possible, though I'd need to check that with an expert.

It'd be interesting to see such a test performed, for sure. But like someone said above, the believers aren't that interested in real science.
 
Akri,

- I agree, "not necessarily." But, I would expect a significant probability of a significant majority of skeptics in the groups -- especially amongst those leading the groups...
- I also agree that it doesn't explain why they would all come up with a 14th century date -- but, it doesn't mean that there is no explanation. For instance, what if some of them did notice what could have been patching, but due to a bias (however subconscious) ignored it as being inconsequential? What if some had some doubts about the sample being actually representative of the greater Shroud, but dismissed the doubt also due to a bias (however subconscious).
- I just think that we humans are very poor at keeping our biases at bay if there is any room at all for their expression.
- And then, of course, I want to believe all that...

--- Jabba

What reason do you have to think this is true?
" For instance, what if some of them did notice what could have been patching, but due to a bias (however subconscious) ignored it as being inconsequential? What if some had some doubts about the sample being actually representative of the greater Shroud, but dismissed the doubt also due to a bias (however subconscious). ..."

We already know there absolutely no doubt the sample came from an area of the TS which had no patching.
If you believe otherwise, please post up your evidence for such conjecture.
 
I think that's a different type of calibration. That calibration is done to figure out what C14 readings match to what calendar date. The calibration we're talking about, which uses controls, is calibrating the machine to ensure that what it's reading is what's actually there.

For example, water freezes at 0C and boils at 100C. But if you change altitude, the actual temperatures change, so you need to modify your scale to account for that. No controls are needed for this process. When you go to use an actual thermometer, however, you need to make sure that when it says "0C" it's actually measuring something which is 0C. So you measure the temperature of an ice cube (accounting for your altitude) and see if you get the proper result.

While i have virtually no knowledge about how a radiocarbon dating machine works, i'd like to expand a little on the issue of calibration. My background is electronics, but from what i know so far, the basic issue is the same with all kinds of machines/tools used to meassure something.

First of all the issue of a control. A control is basically just to verify that the readings you get are in the right ballpark. If i hook up my frequency counter to a crystal oscillator at 10 MHz, and my counter shows roundabout that value, i can assume that the counter basically works. It does not say anything about the absolute accuracy of either, however. It is just a way to confirm the basic correct functioning of the machine.

If one needs a more accurate test, a standard is used. In the electonics world we have resistance, capacitance and inudctance standards. Those are often accurate into the low (or even fractional) ppm range (parts-per-million). There are primary and secondary standards too, the primary one having a better accuracy.

This then goes hand in hand with calibration. Calibration is basically just a means to figure out the relationship between the expected value of an meassurement and what the machine actually reads. It does not, however, mean that the machine itself is adjusted in any way. At least not normally. You take a bunch of standards and meassure them, then record what the machine under test is reading. You then use these results to correct for any offsets/factors the actual machine has when you do "real" readings of devices under test.

In any case, to make the whole thing work you usually want a standard whose accuracy is at least one magnitude better than the accuracy of the machine you test. However, this may or may not be the case for C14 dating machines.

The next step is adjustment, if one wants it. It is often avoided, since the implications are huge. Adjustment means that you adjust the actual machine to give the reading that you expect from the standard that you meassure. The reason why this is often avoided is for stability. Any change you make to the adjustemt of, for example, a bench multimeter means to adjust physical adjustment points (like trimmers/potentiometers). But fiddling with them means that you introduce short term instabilities, since these are mechanical devices and will settle over time. The result is that right after adjustment a machine may read 100% correct, but the simple act of letting it sit for a while will cause it to drift off.

Sorry for this rambling, but i think it is really important that people understand what things like calibration or controls actually mean in the context of "machines that meassure stuff". It is not important that your thermometer reads exactly 0°C when the meassured sample is at 0°C. The important thing is that you know that a reading of 1°C, for example, is actually 0°C, and on a repeatable basis (i.e. you need to have confidence in the readings). So we (speaking of the electronics world) use controls and "low level" standards for ourselves to verify that the equipment we use is giving us correct readings (= confidence). From time to time we send the equipment to a calibration lab, which has much better standards to test the equipment against. Usually we keep records of those calibrations to see where a machine might drift to (long term stability).

While i am sure that C14 machines have quite some differencies compared to a benchtop multimeter (in means of calibration etc.), i'm also pretty sure that the general rules are the same.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Good post.

Just a word on "standards". I worked in a shop where we calibrated all kinds of equipment, oscilloscopes, analog and digital meters, clamp-on ammeters, HI-Pot testers, etc.

One might wonder how these standards are obtained, and integrated into the testing. We had to have some standards verified and traceable to NBS once a year as I recall.

For instance, how do you ship someone a "voltage" standard? We had a liquid standard cell, which NBS would measure and ship back to us, and we would install it in a Fluke differential voltmeter and set the reference to match the NBS numbers: for example 1.0223216 volts at ?Degrees C. The internal resistance of the voltmeter was that of an electrometer, very high, so the cell never lost more than a few millivolts in all the time I worked there.

I assembled a DVM (digital volt meter) kit way back when, and I was impressed by the method they used to allow calibration. They included an LED and a resistor to be used in series, and a printout of the band gap voltage drop that they measured when testing. To calibrate the meter, I hooked the LED/resistor to 5 volts, and measured the drop across the LED with the meter and calibrated to the spec on the printout. Pretty cool.
 
That's very informative. Thanks for sharing :)

Thanks! I expanded on this because i see that Jabba seems to have a problem with what a control in the context of a machine actually means.

While the underlying idea of a control is the same for machine and human based tests, the consequences (and thus the "true" meaning of control) are a bit different. A human can fudge results at will, in any direction desired, at any time, from one minute to another, as wanted. A machine can not, unless it is broken (in which case the results would be rather random). Ot of course if an operator willfully tampers with the machine. But usually such tampering would involve a level of knowledge that most operators just won't have. Plus, more often than not it would be rather obvious to others.

Most "lay" people have huge difficulties to understand that, and what the term control, standard, calibration and adjustment really mean in the contect of machines. Of course they are not to blame for that, how should they know it if it is not their every day job to use such machines. However, from someone who wants to use those things to make an argument i really expect to have at least a basic knowledge of them. Something that Jabba and the likes seem to be sorely missing.

Practical example: If you have a car, it is unlikely that you will get a ticket for speeding in a 50 km/h zone when driving 51 km/h. The reason is that all the stuff involved to meassure your speed has variances. Your speedometer is one of them. Which, in turn, depends on your tires diameter. So when you read a certain speed, that reading already has a tolerance. The next thing is whatever external device is meassuring your speed. They have to assume that, while you are faster than 50, your tacho reads 50. And after that they have to allow for the tolerance of their equipment.

But as said, i have virtually no knowledge of the finer details of C14 machines, so things my be different there, but i am fairly certain that the basic principles are the same there.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Good post.

Thanks!

For instance, how do you ship someone a "voltage" standard? We had a liquid standard cell, which NBS would measure and ship back to us, and we would install it in a Fluke differential voltmeter and set the reference to match the NBS numbers: for example 1.0223216 volts at ?Degrees C. The internal resistance of the voltmeter was that of an electrometer, very high, so the cell never lost more than a few millivolts in all the time I worked there.

Yes. And good that you bring up an example with such an "uneven" number. People often think that, for example, a specific volatge is used, like 1.00000 or 10.0000 or the likes. But most often that is not so. While there are indeed "absolute" standards (in timing, atomic clocks like a caesium clock are a good example for such), the absolute value is of little importance. Way more important is the stability of the source.

To translate that to C14, it does not matter if your control is 100, 101.354, 362.521 or whatever years old. The only things that are important are that you know what the actual is supposed to be, and that the actual sample is stable, i.e. that it will be the same when you receive it. And then, when you received it, you test it. And if the machine gives a reading that is "roundabout" that of what you expect, you know that your machine is working OK.

I assembled a DVM (digital volt meter) kit way back when, and I was impressed by the method they used to allow calibration. They included an LED and a resistor to be used in series, and a printout of the band gap voltage drop that they measured when testing. To calibrate the meter, I hooked the LED/resistor to 5 volts, and measured the drop across the LED with the meter and calibrated to the spec on the printout. Pretty cool.

I would bet that it was Heathkit. They are rather famous for having sold kits that can be easily and rather accurately adjusted with only the parts provided.

Greetings,

Chris
 
I would bet that it was Heathkit. They are rather famous for having sold kits that can be easily and rather accurately adjusted with only the parts provided.
No, it was some brand X, one of the first LED 3 1/2 digit meters based on the 40 ? Pin IC (Intersil?) that became the standard for many years.

ETA: Intersil, ICL7107.
 
Last edited:
I stopped reading there because it seemed to be a better summation of the thread.

Fair enough ;) Yea, it pretty sure won't make a difference to him, especially after almost 6k pages. But then, i thought it might be a good idea to give the "average people" some perspective about the issues of what things mean when using machines to meassure stuff. Plus, i'm new to this thread (as far as posting is involved. Yes, i have read the whole darn thing!).

I don't really expect the believers to change their minds or even to take what i wrote into consideration. Experience shows that more often than not such people are impervious to real world facts.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Fair enough ;) Yea, it pretty sure won't make a difference to him, especially after almost 6k pages. But then, i thought it might be a good idea to give the "average people" some perspective about the issues of what things mean when using machines to meassure stuff. Plus, i'm new to this thread (as far as posting is involved. Yes, i have read the whole darn thing!).

I don't really expect the believers to change their minds or even to take what i wrote into consideration. Experience shows that more often than not such people are impervious to real world facts.

Greetings,

Chris

Greetings, Chris, and good on you for having read the whole thread. I read it too before I posted. It took some effort.
 
Not that it's relevant to the dating, but you do raise an interesting question. Your assumption is that educated, intelligent men and women would not believe in the supernatural. Now, why do you think that might be?


Perhaps Jabba shares the views of deeply Christian erstwhile and maybe future US presidential candidate Rick Santorum:

"President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college,” Santorum said. “What a snob!"
Source

Ignorance is bliss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom