Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:
Questions for Hugh:

Hugh, you DO believe that A) Christ was resurrected and B) that such a burial shroud of his once did exist, per Scripture - correct? And if you believe this - and let's forget about this particular Shroud artifact for a moment - do you have any reasons that it is impossible for it to still exist?

Hugh: No, of course not. Cloth from long before the time of Christ has been preserved, all over the world and from all sorts of environments. It has also been radiocarbon dated. Cloth is particularly good material for radiocarbon dating. It is easy to remove contaminents, and because is made from fast growing plants, relatively uniform in its results. Just like the Shroud!

Hugh, you only responded to your assessment of a SIMILAR ancient cloth. But do you believe, per my questions about A and B above, are they historically true - per Jesus being resurrected and that his burial coverings from which He arose from the dead once did exist?

DBowling wrote:Nonsense. No I have never read the pamphlet you refer to, and I have never tried French reweaving myself.

Then can you possibly think you know anything about it?

However, the unique feature of French reweaving (in contrast to other reweaving techniques) is specifically that it is 'invisible' from both front and back.

Really? Have you any evidence at all to suggest that this statement is true? Try looking up French Reweaving in Google. There's a US company called Withoutatrace, and a UK one called the British Invisible Mending Service.

And French reweaving was a technique that was known to be used in 16th century France.

I dare say. It was used to mend tapestries in particular. But it is still easily visible from the back. Have you read what Mechthilde Flury-Lemberg has to say about French Reweaving?

The evidence which Ray Rogers lays out in his article directly contradicts your assertion about the patch composition.

Which evidence is that? I wish you'd be a bit more specific instead of just hurling great lumps of paper at me!

Ray Rogers is the technical expert, so I'll defer to Roger's technical analysis in the paper that I posted the link for.
If you wish to point out technical errors in Ray Rogers' analysis, go for it.

You can't find any evidence in Rogers's paper that contradicts my assertion about the patch composition, can you? Well, fair enough. Neither can I.

Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Ah, well, that's what I mean about Rogers's desperate wish to believe the shroud authentic. He would never have used a word like 'prove' when he was younger. However, quoting the abstract of a paper is not the same as quoting the evidence. I agree that Rogers thought that his experiments demonstrated that the radiocarbon corner was a reweave, but I don't think that his results justify his conclusion. Some are contradictory of earlier work, and some are simply insufficient.

Are you asserting that the segments of the sample with the greater percentage of 16th century cloth gave the younger radiocarbon dates? I'd like to see the 'evidence' for that assertion.

No, I don't think there is any 16th century cloth. However, those who would like to demonstrate that there is some usually use an illustration such as this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pKnop7FLHKo/V ... Sample.jpg). Note that the dark green area is supposed to represent "16th century" and the yellow area is supposed to represent "1st century". Superimposing the two images shows that on the sample, there is more dark green at the bottom, and less on the top. This implies that there is more 16th century material at the bottom, and less at the top. However, Riani and Atkinson's paper (http://www.lse.ac.uk/statistics/researc ... ay2010.pdf), demonstrating a chronological gradient across the 12 different samples, shows that the older dates came from the bottom samples, and the younger ones from the top.

Now, your answers to my questions:
1) "Yes, the shroud itself was made of flax not cotton." You insist on this in site of my evidence to the contrary, and without any evidence in favour. That's OK, but it's not science.

2) "Yes, I disagree with your 'suggestion'. As I stated I believe the pigmentation was used to make the color of the patch blend in with the color of the Shroud." Fair enough, although if the dye matches the patch, then the patch makes the Shroud appear older, not younger than it really is. See my explanation above.

3) "Yes, the progressive dates indicate a difference in percentage of 16th century cloth to original Shroud material across the radiocarbon sample." They do, but they show that any contamination makes the Shroud appear older, not younger than it really is. See my explanation above.

4) "Yes, you are factually incorrect in your assertion that French reweaving is not 'invisible' from both sides." You insist on this in site of my evidence to the contrary, and without any evidence in favour. That's OK, but it's not science.

5) "See my quote from Rogers' abstract in my previous post." You quoted his abstract, not his evidence.

6) "I'm waiting to see your 'evidence' for that particular assertion." As above.

hughfarey wrote:

However, the unique feature of French reweaving (in contrast to other reweaving techniques) is specifically that it is 'invisible' from both front and back.

Really? Have you any evidence at all to suggest that this statement is true? Try looking up French Reweaving in Google.

Been there... done that... that's how I confirmed that the unique feature of French reweaving vs other reweaving techniques is that it is 'invisible' from both front and back.

The evidence which Ray Rogers lays out in his article directly contradicts your assertion about the patch composition.

Which evidence is that? I wish you'd be a bit more specific instead of just hurling great lumps of paper at me!

Ray Rogers is the technical expert, so I'll defer to Roger's technical analysis in the paper that I posted the link for.
If you wish to point out technical errors in Ray Rogers' analysis, go for it.

You can't find any evidence in Rogers's paper that contradicts my assertion about the patch composition, can you?

Of course I can, and did, and I posted the quote from the abstract... don't know how you missed it, but here it is again.

Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Or did you agree with with Ray's position that "the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin"?

However, those who would like to demonstrate that there is some usually use an illustration such as this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pKnop7FLHKo/V ... Sample.jpg). Note that the dark green area is supposed to represent "16th century" and the yellow area is supposed to represent "1st century". Superimposing the two images shows that on the sample, there is more dark green at the bottom, and less on the top. This implies that there is more 16th century material at the bottom, and less at the top. However, Riani and Atkinson's paper (http://www.lse.ac.uk/statistics/researc ... ay2010.pdf), demonstrating a chronological gradient across the 12 different samples, shows that the older dates came from the bottom samples, and the younger ones from the top.

Interesting... I'll take a look at that...

Now, your answers to my questions:
1) "Yes, the shroud itself was made of flax not cotton." You insist on this in site of my evidence to the contrary, and without any evidence in favour. That's OK, but it's not science.

Let me make sure I understand what you are asserting here...
Are you claiming that the Shroud is not made of flax?
Are you claiming that unrepaired portions of the Shroud are composed of cotton?

Rogers confirmed the existence of embedded cotton fibers in the area of the carbon dating sample, while noting that such cotton fibers are not found in other samples from anywhere else on the shroud. Gilbert Raes, a textile expert, had first found cotton fibers in 1973. He assumed, and everyone assumed at the time, that this was representative of the whole cloth. It turns out that it was not. Thousands of fiber samples taken from the main part of the Shroud reveal no cotton, whatsoever.

5) "See my quote from Rogers' abstract in my previous post." You quoted his abstract, not his evidence.

I posted the link to the article which contains the the abstract and supporting evidence. As I stated before, feel free to let me know where you believe his evidence is technically wrong.

There are a number of shroud topics that are debated back and forth, but for me there are two primary issues that are key to my belief that the shroud is likely the burial cloth of Jesus.
1. Is the radiocarbon sample taken from the shroud representative of the composition of the shroud or is it the result of a 16th century repair.
I think Ray Rogers' makes a compelling and scientifically backed case for the proposition that

Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

In his paper
Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

And none of your assertions do anything to invalidate either the scientific analysis presented in his paper or the conclusions that Ray Rogers draws from that scientific analysis.

For those that are interested here is a link to an overview of...
What caused Ray Rogers to change his mind about the carbon dating?
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Scienc ... hange.html

2. Are there other dating techniques for the shroud that are either consistent with or inconsistent with the results given by the single radiocarbon sample from the shroud?
As Ray Rogers also points out the total lack of vanillin in the Shroud itself is an indicator that the Shroud is at least 1300 years old. And the presence of vanillin in the radiocarbon sample is another indicator that the area where the radiocarbon sample was taken was not the same age as the rest of the shroud.

Here is a link to an overview of...
What is the significance of vanillin in understanding the age of the Shroud?
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Scienc ... illin.html

DBowling wrote:

However, those who would like to demonstrate that there is some usually use an illustration such as this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pKnop7FLHKo/V ... Sample.jpg). Note that the dark green area is supposed to represent "16th century" and the yellow area is supposed to represent "1st century". Superimposing the two images shows that on the sample, there is more dark green at the bottom, and less on the top. This implies that there is more 16th century material at the bottom, and less at the top. However, Riani and Atkinson's paper (http://www.lse.ac.uk/statistics/researc ... ay2010.pdf), demonstrating a chronological gradient across the 12 different samples, shows that the older dates came from the bottom samples, and the younger ones from the top.

Interesting... I'll take a look at that...

I did a quick look, and based on what I could find the green color in the photograph is an indicator of the increased presence of carbon. That increased carbon can be due to interwoven cotton strands. Handling at the corners could also introduce sources of carbon that could contribute to the green color. So while the green color may be an indicator of increased carbon, it cannot be used to quantify what types of carbon are present.

Radiocarbon dating is a much more reliable indicator of the precise amounts of C-14 than the green color in a photograph.

Kurieuo wrote:Hugh, perhaps you've covered this, in the other thread. And I'm sure you'll get to it.

Probably! You make some interesting points, as usual. One of the big questions about the Shroud is whether it is evidence of a miracle, in the sense of something quite outside the laws of physics as we understand them. A few quite sensible scientists have been drawn towards this idea, although Ray Rogers, discussed elsewhere in this thread, was certainly not one of them. Giulio Fanti and John Jackson, reputable scientists both, are convinced of such a miracle, and Paolo di Lazzaro is clearly inclined towards the idea. I think it would be philosophically unwise for a scientist to deny the possibility, but once one has declared one's hand, so to speak, then no further scientific inquiry is at all sensible. Why postulate medieval reweaving, or powerful laser X-rays, or 'mechanical transparency', if the Shroud's maker was not subject to the laws of science. A miracle of that kind could have produced the radiocarbon date, the image and all its characteristics without any requirement for all the mechanical circumstances adduced to account for it. God is not constrained by physics, and could have done anything. Curiously, very few people truly believe that though. They want both a miracle and some kind of rational explanation for it, as if they didn't really have faith that a true, irrational miracle was credible. I do not hold such a wishy-washy view. Either the Shroud image is explicable in terms of science or it's not. Since the second possibility precludes any sensible scientific investigation, I must, for the sake of further investigation, adopt the first, even while admitting the second as a possibility.

Comparing the various bits of evidence for a 1st or a 14th century origin, the trouble is that nearly all of it is negative. We have, as the STuRP team pointed out, lots of evidence for what the Shroud is not, but very little for what it is. Such experiments as have been attempted to obtain an image from a body have been abject failures, while the experiments to achieve one using paint, light, heat or acid have at least produced images of sorts, even if they have failed to replicate all the characteristics of the Shroud itself.

Given all this, the radiocarbon dating has produced clear evidence for a medieval origin, which has not been, to my mind, successfully refuted, although it has certainly been challenged. If it is wrong, then an equally clear demonstration of why or how it is wrong is required, and so far, the challenges have not been adequate to the task. However weak, a single sheet of paper is more solid than a mile of clouds, and, so far, none of the evidence for authenticity is more solid than clouds.

Why doesn't the Catholic church allow further testing? I think it fears that it would be impossible to achieve an impartial team of testers, so that whatever the result, naysayers would be able to blame the interests of the team for an unsatisfactory result.

DBowling wrote:Been there... done that... that's how I confirmed that the unique feature of French reweaving vs other reweaving techniques is that it is 'invisible' from both front and back.

No. That's absurd. There is no suggestion, on any website referring to French Reweaving, that it is invisible on both sides. I challenge you to provide any indication that I may be wrong.

The rest of your post clings to Ray Rogers's paper in Thermochimica Acta. As I have said, he was a consummate scientists and the results of his experiments must be taken seriously. It is the conclusions he draws from his results that I disagree with. I will explain why, in detail, in my next post.

hughfarey wrote:

DBowling wrote:Been there... done that... that's how I confirmed that the unique feature of French reweaving vs other reweaving techniques is that it is 'invisible' from both front and back.

No. That's absurd. There is no suggestion, on any website referring to French Reweaving, that it is invisible on both sides. I challenge you to provide any indication that I may be wrong.

I'll return the favor again...
You are the one who continues to be absurd.

Here's one
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Defini ... aving.html

French reweaving is one form of invisible reweaving. Unlike other forms of invisible reweaving such as inweaving, it is nearly invisible, without magnification, from both sides of the cloth.

Michael Ehrlich, the owner of a company called Without A Trace offers invisible mending services for expensive fabrics. He explains that inweaving is detectable on the reverse side of the cloth while French reweaving is not.

Dbowling that doesn't count . How dare you use an expert of that very weaving style.
I say your post should be disqualified because it quotes from expert reweavers.
What we need are quotes from people who are laymen in this kind of reweavers

DBowling wrote:"French reweaving is one form of invisible reweaving. Unlike other forms of invisible reweaving such as inweaving, it is nearly invisible, without magnification, from both sides of the cloth. Michael Ehrlich, the owner of a company called Without A Trace offers invisible mending services for expensive fabrics. He explains that inweaving is detectable on the reverse side of the cloth while French reweaving is not."

Magnificent. Now why didn't you say that before? And it sounds impressive; if true, I shall be duly humbled, so I have already written to Withoutatrace with a view to commissioning an invisible repair. Nothing like the real thing for evidence, don't you think?

Bippy wrote: [bla.. bla.. bla..]

Do grow up, there's a dear. Until now DBowling had not mentioned any quotes from any experts. Now he has, and I am responding with alacrity.

Now. Ray Rogers's principal claim in his Thermochimica Acta paper was that there was vanillin on the radiocarbon threads, but no vanillin on the rest of the Shroud, demonstrating that the radiocarbon corner was different from the rest of the Shroud. So far, so good. However, he was not able to compare the threads directly, as by 2003 all the tape samples had been returned. His evidence for the main part of the Shroud derives from the exhaustive testing by Heller and Adler in 1978, although he was able to test radiocarbon corner threads himself, having been given some. With this in mind, let's see what he wrote: "The lignin at growth nodes on the shroud's flax fibers did not give the usual chemical spot test for lignin (i.e. the phloroglucinol/HCl test for vanillin). The Holland cloth and other medieval linens gave a clear test." Setting aside the fact that the phloroglucinol/HCl test is not strictly speaking a test for vanillin, there are some anomalies here that need to be cleared up. What did Rogers mean by "the Holland cloth and other medieval linens". Neither he nor Heller & Adler tested the Holland cloth, and there is no record in Shroud literature for the testing of "other medieval linens". It is strange that Rogers didn't give any reference to them. Heller & Adler did receive a sticky tape from the Holland cloth, but they did not test it for "organic species and functional groups" (including lignin), and their sample did not come from the radiocarbon corner. This may be relevant later on.

Rogers goes on to say: "The phloroglucinol-hydrochloric-acid reagent detects vanillin (4-hydroxy-2-methoxybenzaldehyde) with good sensitivity." This conflicts with the findings of Pomar et al. in 'O-4-Linked coniferyl and sinapyl aldehydes in lignifying cell walls are the main targets of the Wiesner (phloroglucinol-HCl) reaction' (Protoplasma, October 2002), who say: "However, given the relatively low abundance of 4- O-linked vanillin in lignifying cell walls and the low extinction coefficient of its red-brown phloroglucinol adduct, it is unlikely that vanillin contributes to a great extent to the phloroglucinol-positive stain reaction." Actually it's not that relevant, because it's the degradation of lignin that we are concerned about, but it is curious none the less.

Next, Rogers, in his element as a thermal analyst, uses the Arrhenius expression to calculate how much vanillin might be left in old material. However, again we have an odd expression here: "If the shroud had been stored at a constant 25°C, it would have taken about 1319 years to lose a conservative 95% of its vanillin" and here "A linen produced in A.D.1260 would have retained about 30% of its vanillin in 1978." Lignin, and material made of it, does not contain a reservoir of vanillin which gets gradually depleted. Vanillin is a product of the degradation of lignin. As it stands, Rogers's sentences literally don't make sense.

Be that as it may, let's look at Rogers's finding from his calculations:
At 25°C, the shroud loses nearly all its vanillin in 1319 years.
At 23°C, the shroud loses nearly all its vanillin in 1845 years.
At 20°C, the shroud loses nearly all its vanillin in 3095 years.

At 140°C, the shroud loses nearly all its vanillin in 2 minutes.

The last calculation was mine, of course. In 1532, the Shroud was in a box that got so hot that silver melted (900°C). No wonder there is no vanillin in the Shroud. Rogers knew this was a serious objection to his idea, and attempted to respond, but his calculations are not very robust. "The temperature gradient through the cloth in the reliquary should have been very steep, and the cloth's centre would not have heated at all in the time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of he scorches illustrates this fact." No, it doesn't. The conductivity along flax threads is not the same as the conductivity/convection of a pile of folded cloth, as no doubt he knew well, and of course he did not say what he thought "the time available" was.

All this throws considerable doubt on our faith in the qualitative value of Rogers's calculations, a fact which he readily acknowledged. The best he could manage (twice) is: "the cloth must be quite old," and a hopeful "the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years."

Still, after all that, there was vanillin on the radiocarbon sample, so where did it come from? The most obvious answer is the Madder root, with which the radiocarbon corner, according to Rogers, was thickly coated. Vanillin is soluble in water and would certainly be extracted from the roots of the madder plant as it was prepared as a dye.

Hugh, your passion to debunk the Shroud is interesting. But I'm really curious as to what you believe about THE Shroud of Christ of history. So I'm reposting my questions, as I don't think you answered them:

Philip: You DO you believe that A) Christ was resurrected from the dead and B) that such a burial shroud of his once did exist, per Scripture - correct? And if you believe this - and let's forget about this particular Shroud artifact for a moment - do you have any reasons that it is impossible for it to still exist?

Hugh, you only responded to your assessment of a SIMILAR ancient cloth. But do you believe, per my questions about A and B above, are they historically true - per Jesus being resurrected and that his burial coverings from which He arose from the dead once did exist?

hughfarey wrote:Now. Ray Rogers's principal claim in his Thermochimica Acta paper was that there was vanillin on the radiocarbon threads, but no vanillin on the rest of the Shroud, demonstrating that the radiocarbon corner was different from the rest of the Shroud. So far, so good.
...

Be that as it may, let's look at Rogers's finding from his calculations:
At 25°C, the shroud loses nearly all its vanillin in 1319 years.
At 23°C, the shroud loses nearly all its vanillin in 1845 years.
At 20°C, the shroud loses nearly all its vanillin in 3095 years.

At 140°C, the shroud loses nearly all its vanillin in 2 minutes.

The last calculation was mine, of course. In 1532, the Shroud was in a box that got so hot that silver melted (900°C). No wonder there is no vanillin in the Shroud. Rogers knew this was a serious objection to his idea, and attempted to respond, but his calculations are not very robust. "The temperature gradient through the cloth in the reliquary should have been very steep, and the cloth's centre would not have heated at all in the time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of he scorches illustrates this fact." No, it doesn't. The conductivity along flax threads is not the same as the conductivity/convection of a pile of folded cloth, as no doubt he knew well, and of course he did not say what he thought "the time available" was.

I think we would both agree that the interior of the box did not reach anything near 900 C. The box did what it was supposed to do... protect the Shroud.
We simply do not know how hot it got inside the box, so that is all speculation.
However, I do agree with Roger's assessment.

Any heating at the time of the fire would decrease the
amount of vanillin in the lignin as a function of the temperature
and time heated; however, different amounts of vanillin
would have been lost in different areas. No samples from any
location on the shroud gave the vanillin test.
Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give
the vanillin test, the cloth must be quite old. It is thus very
unlikely that the linen was produced during medieval times

As Rogers points out the temperature of the cloth within the box would vary, thus if the Shroud were truly of medieval origin, one would expect the vanillin throughout the cloth to also vary... from none in the portions of the cloth that were least protected from the heat to some measurable amount in the portions of the cloth that were most protected from the heat.
However that is not what we see. We don't see variation throughout the cloth. In the Shroud we see a total absence of vanillin... throughout the whole cloth.

So I personally agree with Rogers' conclusion
"It is thus very unlikely that the linen was produced during medieval times"

Still, after all that, there was vanillin on the radiocarbon sample, so where did it come from? The most obvious answer is the Madder root, with which the radiocarbon corner, according to Rogers, was thickly coated. Vanillin is soluble in water and would certainly be extracted from the roots of the madder plant as it was prepared as a dye.

I need some help on this one...
I was unable to to validate that the dye produced by the Madder root would be an adequate source of vanillin to support your theory.
Link Please.

This is all sensible and illustrates the discussion. My overall point is to show that although there have been sensible disagreements about the radiocarbon date, many of which need more clarification, it cannot be said that it has been comprehensively refuted. On the other hand, as Christopher Ramsay has said, there is a sufficient collection of circumstantial evidence to raise genuine doubt about its accuracy. Contrary to Philip's assertion, I have no passion to discredit the Shroud - indeed, I would say I have done more than most to discover the truth about it, including extensive experiments with various radiation/emanation mechanisms, and the chemistry of ammonia, urea, saponin, myrhh, aloes, etc. which might have demonstrated the way the image could have been formed 'authentically.' I'll bet there are very few people who have a piece of 'invisible mending' on their desk, and you'll be pleased to know that I have just despatched a small hole to Michael Ehrlich to see if he can mend it invisibly on both sides. If it comes back undetectable, I shall have to revise my views.

Back to Philip. It is not scientifically impossible that the original shroud of Jesus, which I believe did indeed actually exist, still exists. There is plenty of archaeological evidence from the time, and considerably earlier. However I imagine that your next question is - so why can't the Shroud of Turin be that shroud? The trouble is that it is also not impossible for all the other 'relics' from the time to be preserved either: manger, swaddling clothes, tunics, ropes, nails, cross, crown of thorns, titulus, spear and so on, pieces of all of which, all authenticated by the affidavits and seals of numerous bishops, are readily available for purchase from russianstore.com or from ebay from "Father Salvatore" a renegade quack at the Vatican. The question "why can't all of these be authentic?" begs credibility, in my opinion, although those few 'threads' allegedly from the shroud which I have been able to examine are much thicker than those of the Shroud of Turin. As such, they more closely resemble 1st Century Jewish archaeological material - do they 'disprove' the Shroud? If not, why not? There does not appear to have been any interest in 'mementos' of Jesus until 400 years after his death. Eusebius, in his detailed account of the Emperor Constantine and his wife's exploration of the site of the Holy Sepulchre, does not mention the discovery of any relics, all of which appeared over the years almost exclusively in Constantinople. Most of them were given some sort of 'provenance' as they appeared, but the lack of any mention of them until their appearance in Constantinople must give us pause for doubt.

Notice how Hugh has softened his stance now on the shroud , yet hasn't answered dbowlings question right above. Without a trace was even quoted as saying a reweave like the one they specialize in can not be detected by the naked eye on the front and back , this was known for a long time in shroud circles and Hugh himself has known it and could have emailed them a trillion years ago .

The shroud can't be proven extensively by science. As I said before it must be studied like a myrder mystery by Sherlock Holmes

bippy123 wrote:Without a trace was even quoted as saying a reweave like the one they specialize in can not be detected by the naked eye on the front and back , this was known for a long time in shroud circles and Hugh himself has known it and could have emailed them a trillion years ago.

Sadly I had genuinely missed Michael Ehrlich's claim that he could repair a cloth invisibly on both sides. In order to find out about invisible weaving, I concentrated on UK and French practitioners, and, as I say, their mends are visible on the back. Now that I have heard from Michael, I have set him the challenge. Worth every penny, in my view.