Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Shroud of Turin
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 77 (76423)
01-03-2004 6:43 PM


from another thread:
WillowTree writes:
The Shroud of Turin IS NOT a fake.
Research has proven that carbon 14 dating does not accurately date linen.
I will be interested in seeing the evidence for this.

Common sense isn't

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 01-04-2004 1:51 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 01-04-2004 7:59 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-05-2004 8:03 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-11-2004 6:52 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2006 10:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 2 of 77 (76447)
01-04-2004 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
01-03-2004 6:43 PM


Actually, as I understand it, since the shroud was involved in a fire during the 1400's it is belived that the sample tested was tainted. Subsequent retests, however, did prove the shroud to be made sometime in the middle ages.
shroud of Turin - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Just thought Id throw something ito the mix for ya, Nosey

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2004 6:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 01-04-2004 2:02 AM Yaro has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 77 (76448)
01-04-2004 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Yaro
01-04-2004 1:51 AM


Coincidence
did prove the shroud to be made sometime in the middle ages.
That was what I had heard. Then some suggested that several independent tests were all wrong. Amazingly the error was just enough to date the shroud at about the time it first appeared in history. An utterly astonishing result such a convenient error would be.
But since WT says there is some evidence that the thing is old enough I'd be interested in seeing what there is.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 01-04-2004 1:51 AM Yaro has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 77 (76539)
01-04-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
01-03-2004 6:43 PM


Shroud evidence
bump de bump bump. For those who want to support what they assert.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2004 6:43 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-05-2004 12:02 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 5 of 77 (76568)
01-05-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
01-04-2004 7:59 PM


Re: Shroud evidence
I am sick of discussing the Shroud on another forum - ITS A FAKE.
Radiodating was concordant.
Contamination is not a problem. (have to double the weight of the whole shroud)
Replicas have been created.
No mention of the Shroud until some mercenary shows up in the 13th century wanting to sell it.
The image on the Shroud is stronger on the top surface of the Shroud than the bottom surface where it should be stronger.
Burial Shrouds at the time were 2 separate pieces not a single cloth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 01-04-2004 7:59 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by helena, posted 01-05-2004 2:33 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5844 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 6 of 77 (76583)
01-05-2004 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Eta_Carinae
01-05-2004 12:02 AM


Re: Shroud evidence
Never mind all of that
For me the most compelling evidence that the shroud could not be real is that the face actually looks like a face. If you were to take a facial imprint and flatten it out, it would look remarkably different (kind of like the globe printed in a 2 dimensional map)
regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-05-2004 12:02 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by blitz77, posted 01-06-2004 4:58 AM helena has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 77 (76724)
01-05-2004 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
01-03-2004 6:43 PM


Certainly, please give me a few days - thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2004 6:43 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-06-2004 2:57 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 77 (76776)
01-06-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object
01-05-2004 8:03 PM


Then please remmember to produce actual proof. Not the speculations of shroud supporters (such as the idea that a biofilm "explains" the dates - but to do that then it would have to replace almost the entire material of the shroud).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-05-2004 8:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-06-2004 9:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 77 (76782)
01-06-2004 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by helena
01-05-2004 2:33 AM


Re: Shroud evidence
The DNA of God: Newly Discovered Secrets is a recent book on the topic. It has been a long time since I've read this book (or was it another book on the same topic? I dont remember) but anyway, it states that examination of the material that comprises the shroud has been covered with some organic bacterial coating forms. About 40% of the material is estimated to be this organic material, which is enough to possibly cause the distortion of the radiocarbon dating.
As for the facial imprint.... I remember reading and watching on tv some program about that it could possibly be caused by radioactivity... kinda like a photographic imprint or something like that.
But of course, I'll leave it up to you to examine the evidence and form your own conclusions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by helena, posted 01-05-2004 2:33 AM helena has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 01-06-2004 10:55 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 77 (76801)
01-06-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by blitz77
01-06-2004 4:58 AM


Re: Shroud evidence
About 40% of the material is estimated to be this organic material
Estimated how? And this is after the rigorous cleanings that were done? Wouldn't 40% be a little bit noticable? Was it only "noticed" after someone didn't like the dates that were determined?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by blitz77, posted 01-06-2004 4:58 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-06-2004 11:05 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 77 (76803)
01-06-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
01-06-2004 10:55 AM


Re: Shroud evidence
40% isn't enough. The figures I've seen suggest that it would need to be 60% if all the carbon were modern - but since biofilms grow slowly it'd probably have to be 80% or more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 01-06-2004 10:55 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rei, posted 01-06-2004 1:31 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 12 of 77 (76824)
01-06-2004 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
01-06-2004 11:05 AM


Re: Shroud evidence
PaulK:
My math shows that you're correct. Assuming that all of the bacterial contamination was from the very day that it was tested (the most helpful figure for an old-shroud hypothesis), we get:
C14 halflife: ~5730 years
Shroud's date: ~1350 AD: ~650 yrs: 11.3%: 92% remains.
Jesus's death: ~35 AD: ~1965 yrs: 34.3%: 79% remains.
For every gram of initial C14, there should be 0.79 grams of C14 left.
There are 0.92 grams of C14. That means that there is a surplus of 0.13
grams of C14.
If all bacterial contamination was instant and new, for every gram of its
initial C14, it would provide 1 gram of C14. Thus, we have the equations
(where C is the percentage of contamination and 1-C is the percentage of
the shroud):
C*1.00 + (1-C)*0.79 = 0.92
C + 0.79 - C*0.79 = 0.92
C*0.21 = 0.13
C = 62%
Thus, the best contamination figure they could get was that the mass tested was 62% contamination and 38% shroud.
(*note: this is an oversimplification; C14 rates in the atmosphere constantly fluctuate, and are calibrated via tree rings and ice cores. Also, nuclear testing since the 1950s has increased C14 levels in the atmosphere, so you could probably fall below 60% if all of the bacterial contamination was provided "in the lab" (actually, in all 3 labs that dated it); however, to build up a biofilm, realistically almost all of it would have to have been developed before the 1950s)

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-06-2004 11:05 AM PaulK has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 13 of 77 (76827)
01-06-2004 1:57 PM


Blitz77:
quote:
As for the facial imprint.... I remember reading and watching on tv some program about that it could possibly be caused by radioactivity... kinda like a photographic imprint or something like that.
Won't work. All kinds of radiation so far discovered are isotropic - non directional - in normal gravity and magnetic fields, so the image would be a 360 deg panpramic picture of a face. In order to have the full-frontal face of the shroud, you have to postulate a hitherto unknown gravitationally anisotropic field.
To have any credibility as an explanation, it would require a proof independent of the shroud itself.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by blitz77, posted 01-06-2004 8:53 PM MarkAustin has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 14 of 77 (76854)
01-06-2004 4:20 PM


A couple of small points
True bacterial biofilms need a decent amount of moisture to develop. As far as I'm aware the conditions the shroud are kept in are anything but overly moist.
Secondly everything that has been radiocarbon-dated has a "covering" of bacteria on the surface, so all dating would be wrong. Thing is, it isn't. So why should bacteria on the surface of the shroud meand that the the result is wrong, but for everything else it's OK?
Didn't I also read somewhere that analysis of the pigment which makes up the image show it to be one which wasn't available until around the 13th Century?

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by blitz77, posted 01-06-2004 8:41 PM Trixie has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 77 (76914)
01-06-2004 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Trixie
01-06-2004 4:20 PM


Re: A couple of small points
quote:
Didn't I also read somewhere that analysis of the pigment which makes up the image show it to be one which wasn't available until around the 13th Century
Actually the linen shows no signs of paint pigments (the reddish oxide found is not a paint, according to x-ray flourescent analysis[whatever that technique is lol]) or brush strokes. The red stains were found to be of blood, of type AB, containing elevated levels of bilirubin (a reddish-yellow bile pigment), consistent with that of a person tortured.
quote:
Secondly everything that has been radiocarbon-dated has a "covering" of bacteria on the surface, so all dating would be wrong. Thing is, it isn't. So why should bacteria on the surface of the shroud meand that the the result is wrong, but for everything else it's OK?
Everything else in this case being? I meant that the presence of the bacteria could POSSIBLY have skewed the result. As noted Rei has performed an analysis of the impact of 40% of the linen being made of bacterial and fungal remnants-I imagine that the amount of C present in the organic remnants could be a larger percentage than that of the linen, due to different proportions of C in the materials. The Shroud of Turin suggests that the balance could be caused by the cleaning method used in the dating dissolves some of the cellulose from the flax from the shroud, while not affecting that of the biopolymeric film.
quote:
True bacterial biofilms need a decent amount of moisture to develop. As far as I'm aware the conditions the shroud are kept in are anything but overly moist.
I imagine they get their moisture from the fungi, like lichen do.
Other evidence for the authenticity of the shroud include analysis of the dirt found near the foot of the linen. It was found to contain travertine argonite, a rare form of calcite found near Damascus Gate.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-06-2004]
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Trixie, posted 01-06-2004 4:20 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Asgara, posted 01-06-2004 9:00 PM blitz77 has replied
 Message 29 by Trixie, posted 01-07-2004 3:23 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024