Shroud of Turin

[Philip]

Who the heck is BiBBy???!!!

[PaulSacramento]

LOL, goshdarn typos !!

[Philip]

But Paul, sometimes those typos give us a good laugh! And nowadays I blame all my grammar inconsistencies on auto-correct.

[PaulSacramento]

Imagine if it came out Nippy !

[bippy123]

Nippy, Bibby , zibby

[bippy123]

Hey Bibby:
http://www.jerrynewcombe.com/vocal-point-gary-habermas/

Gary Habermas on the Shroud.

Nice find Paul . Just finished listening to it , excellent interview . Jerry Newcombe is also convinced about the shroud .

I like habermas a lot because we had similar journeys in our faith .
He made some great points here and probably the best point that many people overlook is how the blood clots are pristine and unbroken which means that the man of the shroud had to somehow become transparent and pass through the shroud .

But an even better point that he made was that no matter how strongly we believe that the shroud is authentic , the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is even better . He should know as he is called the resurrection man

I'd love to go fishing with the guy one day (imagine tje stuff he'd talk about ) and geek out with him on ndes and the shroud

[Morny]

Again, my view is quite simply that the C14 dating is correct and vital in dating any historical artifact ( though it is not a stand alone and is only ONE line of evidence).

Thank you. Now that we agree on the reliability of basic radiocarbon dating, we can move on the next crucial step of the authenticity argument.

Number 1 ( and the most crucial) is that samples were taken from only ONE area.
Proper procdure demands that, when possible, multiple samples are taken from multiple areas.
If they were not able or allowed to take form multiple areas then what should be claimed is the simple fact that:
"Of the samples collected in only 1 area of the shroud, we were able to date THAT AREA to the 14th century".
To claim anything else about the shroud is unscientific.
Period.

I've already mentioned that the scientists wanted, but were denied, multiple patches throughout the entire cloth. But at least science has shown, and you agree, that the tested patch reliably dates to the 14th century.

And by implication, if the labs would radiocarbon date multiple swatches through the shroud to the 14th century, you would find that that evidence strongly questions authenticity, or is at least disturbingly puzzling. Is that implication correct?

If so, we're finally making progress.

So now the crucial issue becomes your evidence that the tested patch just happens to be in the exact location of a 14th century repair patch.

What is your evidence that the tested patch is a repair patch?

[PaulSacramento]

Again, my view is quite simply that the C14 dating is correct and vital in dating any historical artifact ( though it is not a stand alone and is only ONE line of evidence).

Thank you. Now that we agree on the reliability of basic radiocarbon dating, we can move on the next crucial step of the authenticity argument.

Number 1 ( and the most crucial) is that samples were taken from only ONE area.
Proper procdure demands that, when possible, multiple samples are taken from multiple areas.
If they were not able or allowed to take form multiple areas then what should be claimed is the simple fact that:
"Of the samples collected in only 1 area of the shroud, we were able to date THAT AREA to the 14th century".
To claim anything else about the shroud is unscientific.
Period.

I've already mentioned that the scientists wanted, but were denied, multiple patches throughout the entire cloth. But at least science has shown, and you agree, that the tested patch reliably dates to the 14th century.

And by implication, if the labs would radiocarbon date multiple swatches through the shroud to the 14th century, you would find that that evidence strongly questions authenticity, or is at least disturbingly puzzling. Is that implication correct?

If so, we're finally making progress.

So now the crucial issue becomes your evidence that the tested patch just happens to be in the exact location of a 14th century repair patch.

What is your evidence that the tested patch is a repair patch?

Have you actually READ any of this thread or any of the links ???

[Morny]

Have you actually READ any of this thread or any of the links ???

Yes. Can I assume you've read the seminal "Nature" article (1989, Damon, et al.) on the shroud dating?

If so, you know why I'm asking basic questions to understand exactly where you disagree with the scientific consensus on just the cloth's radiocarbon dating. E.g., see my previous post.

The analogy I've recently already pointed out is, what if you had a specific disagreement about evolutionary phylogenetic trees, and my response was for you to go read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and a dozen articles from the journal "Nature"?

[PaulSacramento]

You mean this info:
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

[Morny]

You mean this info:
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Again ... so exactly where do you disagree with the scientific consensus on just the cloth's radiocarbon dating?

You seem (but I'm not sure) to agree on the reliability and accuracy of basic radiocarbon dating, and moreover of the test patch being correct dated to the 14th century.

Yes?

And by implication, if the labs would radiocarbon date to the 14th century multiple swatches through the shroud, would you find that that evidence strongly questions authenticity, or is at least disturbingly puzzling?

Yes?

[PaulSacramento]

The C14 testing proves that the swatches were from the 14th century.
Although one swatch was dated to 9BC to 78AD:

Table 3 Calibrated date ranges at the 68% and 95% confidence levels

Sample Mean Date (yr BP) Calendar date ranges
1* 691 ± 31 68% AD 1273 - 1288
95% AD 1262 - 1312, 1353 - 1384 cal
2 ** 937 ± 16 68% AD 1032 - 1048, 1089 - 1119, 1142 - 1154 cal
95% AD 1026 - 1160 cal
3** 1,964 ± 20*** 68% AD 11-64 cal
95% 9 cal BC - AD 78 cal
4** 724 ± 20 68% AD 1268 - 1278 cal
95% AD 1263 - 1283 cal



As I posted before, I have no problem with the C14 dating of the test samples.
What needs to be clear is that the tested samples are NOT conclusive for the WHOLE of the shroud.
Other testing, just as accurate and respected as C14 has concluded that the rest of the shroud is much older.


Add to that this one simple fact:

NO ONE has been able to replicate OR explain the image with modern methods, much less those from the 14th century.

[Morny]

The C14 testing proves that the swatches were from the 14th century.

Great. You have confidence in radiocarbon dating accuracy, at least when the dating matches your theory, viz., the patch is really a 14th century repair.

Although one swatch was dated to 9BC to 78AD:

Huh?! You do realize that that swatch was sample #3, which is a control swatch (not from the shroud) previously known to be about 1900 years old?

As a side note, but still very important, the labs all dated the three non-shroud control swatches accurately.

What needs to be clear is that the tested samples are NOT conclusive for the WHOLE of the shroud.

Believe me, I understand your point, which is why I asked my second question: if the labs dated multiple swatches throughout the shroud all to the 14th century, would you then say that that evidence strongly questions a 1st century origin?

Your answer (as yet, not forthcoming) is crucial to this discussion. If you say, "no", then I can leave in peace you and any masochists still reading this thread. If you say, "yes", then we can move on to your next crucial point.

[Kurieuo]

The C14 testing proves that the swatches were from the 14th century.

Great. You have confidence in radiocarbon dating accuracy, at least when the dating matches your theory, viz., the patch is really a 14th century repair.

Morny, I think you're barking up the wrong tree with PaulS.

Do you understand what the dating of the "patch" means for the fuller shroud?
No one can claim the shroud is a fraud based upon it.

So based upon what do you claim the shroud isn't legitimate?

[PaulSacramento]

The C14 testing proves that the swatches were from the 14th century.

Great. You have confidence in radiocarbon dating accuracy, at least when the dating matches your theory, viz., the patch is really a 14th century repair.

Morny, I think you're barking up the wrong tree with PaulS.

Do you understand what the dating of the "patch" means for the fuller shroud?
No one can claim the shroud is a fraud based upon it.

So based upon what do you claim the shroud isn't legitimate?

For a moment I thought I was not be clear enough.
Glad to see that at least you understood.


See, ANY archaeological dating requires MULTIPLE lines of evidence.
Good science requires multiple lines of evidence.
Carbon dating is just 1 line of evidence.

In absence of any other method, we are stuck with only carbon dating BUT that is NOT the situation here since we have multiple lines of other evidence that dates the rest of the shroud to much later.
Then of course we have the simple fact that NO ONE has been able to explain, much less duplicate the image with MODERN technologies MUCH LESS those from the 14th century.
Ass to that the other simple fact:
No one realized it was an image until the invent of photography, so, what we are expected to believe is that, in the 14th century, someone ( using techniques NO ONE has ever accounted for and still not able to reproduce in the 21st century) created an image on a line that would NOT be able to be seen UNTIL the photographic process was invented.

Ok then.