Shroud of Turin

I do not have any answers to your questions.The complete text of what Dr.Scott said is in the post.Notice, Dr. Scott's conclusion, where he said that he did not know for certain if the Shroud was genuine.His conclusion centered on the fact that a biased L.A. Times presented as fact that the C-14 dating done in 1988 was absolute, definitive, and uncontested.This evidence proves that the L.A. Times printed a completely mis-leading statement when it said the Shroud was proven a medieval cloth.
Dr. Scott's lesson sufficently supports his assertion that there is certainly enough credible sources contesting the 1988 C-14 tests.I urge you to re-read his conclusion again.

I won't stop it. There are a lot of people with Ph.D.'s that have the same name as him.If you don't like it then don't read what I say. I sense deep anger and jealousy. Go ahead and prove me right.

Well, let's see:
absolute - nope, but by the time things are handled by the media that is the way it comes across. Most people aren't used to something that is pretty much for darn and completely sure being called "possibly" or "indicated" so that kind of wording gets dropped. A lot of the time it shouldn't be.definitive - what has been done is about as good as we are going to get. Perhaps, with completely non-descructive tests the church might allow another go at it but not real soon. However, the tests were done very carefullly and are hard to disagree with.uncontested -- nope, since lots of folks want to contest the results. However, contested very well? Not that I've seen so far. We have this handwaving about contamination but no one has explained just how much of what contamination would have to be there after a careful preparation that would skew the results just exactly enough to co-incide with the shroud appearance in the first place.So he has a point to make about the news article but it doesn't say anything about the shroud's dating in any convincing way.

---

Common sense isn't

WT, the validity of the shroud dating is not what is being talked about in the post you don't like. Just saying that someone says such and such isn't really evidence that is going to be very convincing. That is the point being made. I don't care all that much what Dr. S has to say. I want to know why he thinks it is correct. I want to see him go from the data he has to a logical conclusion.So just saying he says so isn't useful. Why does he say so?That is the point about argument from authority. He doesn't do a good job of backing up his conjectures AND he doesn't have the authority in the area of concern in the first place. You may continue to do that kind of thing but it won't convince anyone who wants to think for themselves. Isn't that what you want to get someone to think about it?

---

Common sense isn't

Here is a description of the radiocarbon dating of the shroud and showing the impossibility of contamination causing such a gross error as to give the measured dating for a shroud of date 0 CE.

quote:

---

The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.

---

Note that it also deals with the paint on the shroud.Note further that three internationally renowned dating establishments would have to have had samples contaminated by almost exactly the same amount and make exactly the same mistakes in order to come up with concordant results.Note finally that McCrone is not some armchair expert. He has examined the Shroud as part of the scientific team, and is a world-renowned forensic expert.

I appreciate your comments and honesty.Dr.Scott's conclusion says the media reported as fact something that clearly is not a fact. His entire lesson evidenced the fact that the 1988 test results were flawed.Is Dr.Scott biased ?Yes, I believe so. He is biased in favor of the Shroud because he already knows apart from the Shroud that Jesus rose. Yet, I challenge anyone to cut and paste an excerpt that indicates any unwarranted bias.Dr. Scott presented credible evidence from credible sources that ends in one simple conclusion. C-14 has been inaccurate in regards to dating linen, this coupled with Meecham's opening statement that no archaeologist would trust a series of datings to settle a major historical issue is in my view reasonable cause to doubt the 1988 tests.

Doubt? No I don't think so. Only if you really, really were desparate to beieve the shroud is authentic to bolster a weak faith would you grasp at the straws your doctor is clutching. The idea that contamination could produce the results given is arm waving. As noted when the details are looked at it couldn't have.He never explains the reproducibility of the separate labs work or anything else. He just preaches.

---

Common sense isn't

" test samples were taken from a restored area of salvage " (post 41)Did you some how miss this crucial part of the text and its preceeding information ?I appreciate this post of yours, but post # 41 clearly explains why the 1988 tests are suspect. Unless you can specifically refute from the evidence given by Dr. Scott, I cannot fathom any satisfying debate being derived by straying from the data and claims of post 41.

Now, that is something interesting. Are you saying that this study team, formed to answer such an interesting question actually took and dated pieces of the shroud that were added on to repair it? Why is there all the fuss over contamination and all the nonsense then if it isn't clearly part of the original shroud? Why not just point that out? And, no one pointed this out before the dating was done?

---

Common sense isn't

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/hedges.html
article on C14 dating from ROBERT E. M. HEDGESDomain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions graph of C14 analysisDomain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions pictures of blood stains and paint pigments on linenhttp://www.freeinquiry.com/...tic/shroud/as/schafersman.html
article by STEVEN D. SCHAFERSMANhttp://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/
just about every pro and/or con link concerning the shroud

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

I went back to your post and found the note about the salvage. Why was it missed? Because it is a little tiny throw away line. If it implies anything important why is that?Would you, in your own words, reiterate what the issue are? It seems the contamination is the biggy. At least that is given a lot of "ink".However, a whole bunch of things are thrown into the pot. Some contaminants mentioned would date from the first century. Why in the world would a thoughtful individual bring those up since they wouldn't affect the result.Why haven't you supplied any discussion of the amount of completely modern contamination that would be required to move the measured date so far?It seems your source is big on assertion and very light on details, evidence and logic. Perhaps a bit like Milton?In addtion perhaps you should pull apart the claims you are posting and pick what you believe to be the most important. One that is made a big deal of is the fire the shroud was subject to.Please search for this sentence
"A more subtle form of contamination, whereby the carbon atoms of the cellulose are exchanged or carboxylated with those from a hot carbon dioxide atmosphere, has been proposed as possibly having taken place during the fire to which the shroud was historically exposed when kept at Chambry"
at this site
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/hedges.html
supplied by her royal majesty earlier. It seems that that idea isn't viable.Do you have any others?

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-14-2004]

quote:

---

test samples were taken from a restored area of salvage " (post 41)

​

Did you some how miss this crucial part of the text and its preceeding information ?

​

I appreciate this post of yours, but post # 41 clearly explains why the 1988 tests are suspect. Unless you can specifically refute from the evidence given by Dr. Scott, I cannot fathom any satisfying debate being derived by straying from the data and claims of post 41.

---

Yes, although I have heard this false claim before, I missed it because, as has been said, it was a throw-away linme in an article concerned largely with contamination.If the author has proof that the samples were all taken from the repaired areas, then why all this palaver about contamination? If this is the case, the dates are wrong.However there are a number of problems.First, let us be frank, this claim ammounts to an accusation of fraud, not on the part of the dating labs, but of all the STURP team - includin Walter McCrone, a known Shroud skeptic. Is this what you are saying?Second, the date is wrong for the repairs, which happened after the fire of 1532. The radiocarbon date was c1325. Are you seriously claiming that the Shroud was repaired with a piece of 200 years old linen the nuns who did the work just happened to have lying around?Finally, a quote from a source who has studied the Shroud, given by asgara:

quote:

---

Naturally, believers in the Shroud's authenticity have thrown up numerous criticisms that are variously ludicrous, vacuous, and without merit. Contrary to pro-authenticity advocates, the linen samples were not deceptively switched, not taken from the wrong part of the Shroud material, not improperly cleaned and prepared, did not have a bioplastic coating, were not contaminated by modern bacteria and fungi that were not removed, the carbon-14 content of the cloth was not altered by the fire of 1532, the final results were not deliberately falsified by a conspiracy of anti-religious scientists, and so forth. As has been pointed out by others, modern material of approximately twice the mass as the Shroud samples would have to be added to the samples to bring authentic first-century linen up to radiocarbon dates of the fourteenth-century, and this would have been just too obvious to go unnoticed by so many independent investigators. Once again, the ad hoc excuses, criticisms, and counter-arguments of the radiocarbon dating by Shroud enthusiasts were put forward to preserve appearances at any cost, a classic characteristic of pseudoscience. In real science, legitimate and reliable data that falsify one's most treasured hypotheses and beliefs are accepted, and lead one to abandon one's former beliefs. But sindonology is a pseudoscience, not real science.

---

Willowtree, how can you put any faith in the argument that Scott put forward, based on the description of Moses' face shining? What does that actually mean? How does he get from that to a conclusion that the resurrection must have involved Jesus shining like a Belisha beacon? My three year old's face was shining on Christmas morning, but he didn't leave any fabric marks!!! Cos saying that someone's face is shining can have all sorts of interpretations and to jump from that to the imprinting of an image on the cloth is ludicrous.The evidence I've seen to date suggests that the shroud isn't authentic and, to be honest, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Why? Because whether it is authentic or not doesn't alter the fact that I believe that Jesus was sent by God to die for my sins and I don't need a supernatural imprint on a bit of linen to continue in that belief. If you had to finally accept that the shroud wasn't authentic, would that destroy your faith? Does your faith actually hinge on this one point?I have to admit that I'm interested in the shroud and it's history and finding out more about it, but I'm certainly not pinning my faith on it!

Trixi:What did Dr.Scott say in the text of evidence he presented ?Did he not commense this lesson by saying that the Shroud IS NOT a basis for faith in the ressurection ?Did he not conclude the lesson by saying "I only want to say one thing..." which was a comparison of the evidence that exists for the resurrection apart from the Shroud to be mountanious, and the attempt by the Times to ignore this evidence and dismiss the Shroud "on such shaky foundation" as these flawed 1988 tests. Dr. Scott went on to say that he did not know if the Shroud was genuine etc. etc.If Dr. Scott's faith in the Ressurrection has no bearing on the Shroud being genuine or not, then neither does mine. It seems to me that this post of yours implies that I in someway insinuated that my faith depends on the Shroud being genuine. If you are implying this then could you show me where I said this ?Dr. Scott's point about Moses face is that when he encountered God his face came away glowing from the meeting. God , through scripture , when He is encountered there is always brilliant light , hence the connection to the theory that the Shroud was exposed to this same light which scorched the image onto the cloth.Thanks for reading this reply.

Naw, no anger and only mild jealousy: I wish I'd thought of selling autographed copies of my dissertation. I hereby offer the same to anyone one this board for $65.00 US, postage included to Canada and the US.And WT, I do apologize for coming across so sharply. But all of us here know very well where Scott got his degree by now. And you are likely correct in saying that more than one Dr Gene Scott exist. Dr Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education comes to mind. She goes by "Genie" instead of "Gene", but I don't think the two of them would find too much to agree on.
Home | National Center for Science Education if you're interested.