Evidence for God from Science

Swimmy wrote:More good Shroud news

Professor Giulio Fanti and journalist Saverio Gaeta have published a book with the results of some chemical and mechanical tests which confirm that the Shroud dates back to the 1st century
ANDREA TORNIELLI
romE

New scientific experiments carried out at the University of Padua have apparently confirmed that the Shroud Turin can be dated back to the 1st century AD. This makes its compatible with the tradition which claims that the cloth with the image of the crucified man imprinted on it is the very one Jesus’ body was wrapped in when he was taken off the cross. The news will be published in a book by Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s Engineering Faculty, and journalist Saverio Gaeta, out tomorrow. “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud) is edited by Rizzoli (240 pp, 18 Euro).


What’s new about this book are Fanti’s recent findings, which are also about to be published in a specialist magazine and assessed by a scientific committee. The research includes three new tests, two chemical ones and one mechanical one. The first two were carried out with an FT-IR system, so using infra-red light, and the other using Raman spectroscopy. The third was a multi-parametric mechanical test based on five different mechanical parameters linked to the voltage of the wire. The machine used to examine the Shroud’s fibres and test traction, allowed researchers to examine tiny fibres alongside about twenty samples of cloth dated between 3000 BC and 2000 AD.



The new tests carried out in the University of Padua labs were carried out by a number of university professors from various Italian universities and agree that the Shroud dates back to the period when Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem. Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years. The book’s authors observed that the uncertainty of this date is less than the single uncertainties and the date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross, which historians claim occurred in 30 AD.



The tests were carried out using tiny fibres of material extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana who passed away in 2008 but had participated in the1988 research project and gave the material to Fanti through the cultural institute Fondazione 3M.


http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/in ... one-23579/

Swimmy you best me to it. Great pickup man
If this research holds up, this is huge news. I had a feeling that they were going to release some kind of news on the shroud right before the tv viewing but I had no idea it was going to be this big. This is hugeeee. I wonder what those poor skeptics at the randi forum are doing right now
They are probably all passing Tylenol out to each other to alleviate the splitting headaches that the shroud must be giving them lol.
This test, if it holds up against scrutiny puts it smack dab within the time of Christ give or take 250 years which is even more accurate the Ray Rogers vanillin tests in 2004.
I just had a feeling that they were saving news for the viewing but this is not small news at all.
Again good find Swimmy , rock on dude.

Yes, this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rgery.html was linked on the Drudgereport today.

Interestingly, it states that the Catholic Church has never asserted that The Shroud is authentic.

Philip wrote:Yes, this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rgery.html was linked on the Drudgereport today.

Interestingly, it states that the Catholic Church has never asserted that The Shroud is authentic.

The Catholic Church takes a neutral stance on the shroud because they say it is not needed for our faith, which is rightly so, but the last 2 popes privately believed in its authenticity.

It looks like these tests are being submitted for peer review also
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... s-not.html

I don't know if I would be celebrating too quickly. It seems that the findings may have been dubious.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/28/an-in ... /#comments

OK, Bipster, take a DEEP breath, now, and remember the unwritten rule around here: We don't shoot newbies.

JLAfan2001 wrote:I don't know if I would be celebrating too quickly. It seems that the findings may have been dubious.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/28/an-in ... /#comments

Dubious like the Original dating that skeptics cling to?

JLAfan2001 wrote:I don't know if I would be celebrating too quickly. It seems that the findings may have been dubious.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/28/an-in ... /#comments

JLAFAN , he will be submitting his results for peer review, plus he has offered to offer any help to anyone that wants to verify his results. This sounds like how good science is done.
You also have to remember that there are people on the shroud story blog that are Christians that lean more heavily towards a naturalistic response for the shroud image. One such is YC.
Unlike Mccrone who wouldn't share his results with anyone on the sturp team and actually broke rank with the team, Fanti is more then willing to share his results and even work with others to verify these results.

Philip wrote:OK, Bipster, take a DEEP breath, now, and remember the unwritten rule around here: We don't shoot newbies.

Hehe Philip, I know JLAFAN and he's a good guy
He's looking at both sides of the coin, but remember what I said about some of the posters there. It also seems that their are Christians that don't science to study the shroud and want it to remain a mystery, but I applaud Fanti for being open and honest about sharing his findings, unlike most the skeptics and naturalists of the shroud who have a harder time doing this like Colin berry.

Swimmy wrote:

JLAfan2001 wrote:I don't know if I would be celebrating too quickly. It seems that the findings may have been dubious.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/28/an-in ... /#comments

Dubious like the Original dating that skeptics cling to?

Exactly Swimmy but unlike the now invalidated 88 c14 test results, fanti won't cling to this if it doesn't pass peer review, but if or when it passes peer review its gonna be hard to ignore, but the skeptics will just ignore this like they did for ray Rogers peer reviewed work in thermochimica acta, or they will do like the non scientific magician joe nickell, criticize Rogers about his research when they have no expertise in his field.

It seems like Fantis critics are a bit to quick to criticize his findings as Hugh Farey on the shroud story forum pointed out here in his post.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/28/an-in ... /#comments

"""
Hugh Farey

The translation above contains some delightful but somewhat misleading idiosyncracies (Translating Prof. Fanti as “infantryman” or “footsoldier” for example; and translating “sottoscrito” as “yours truly”), so I hope a clearer, if slightly freer translation of Fanti’s riposte to his critics may be helpful:
“1. The correspondents to Vatican Insider have not been able to read the appendix to my book which clearly explains the provenance of the samples.
2. The samples are from what Cardinal Saldarini specifically refers to in his point d): “material taken with the explicit permission of the Custodian during the STURP investigation in October 1978.”
3. According to the requirements of Cardinals Saldarini and Poletto, the undersigned has contracted for the return of his samples.
4. The results of his published research are reproducible and could be confirmed by parallel tests conducted by the CIS. The undersigned is ready to share his knowledge and experience for this purpose.”
It seems clear the Fanti felt obliged to point this out as the article to which he was replying implied that he was using samples taken without permission either in 1988 or 2002. His declaration has been quickly followed by some nervous backtracking by the Archbishop of Turin, Cesare Nosiglia, to the effect that even if the taking of the samples was authorised, the length of time since 1978 has rendered their provenance insecure. Which indeed may be correct."""

The Fact that Fanti is confident and open enough to share his results and even help CIS in any way he can tells me he is willing and able to follow scientific protocol . Heck he is even submitting for peer review.
It also seems like there are many different personalities at involved here in Italy.
But for sure they will be conducting even more comprehensive tests to double and triple verify this.

This is gonna get interesting folks.

Ok there is now an additional blogpost on shroud story blog about this and Stephen Jones posted his response under the shroud story blog article. Here is his response.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/29/barri ... /#comments

""
Stephen E. Jones

March 29, 2013 at 3:53 am | #1 Reply | Quote
>So the biggest issue so far seems to be the validity of Fanti’s samples
Ever since Mexican paediatrician and microbiologist Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes was given fibres by Riggi in 1993 from his `reserve sample’ and claimed that he had found fragments of Jesus’ DNA on it, and published his results in a 1998 book with the sensationalised title, “The DNA of God?” it has been the Vatican’s `party line’ that any claimed samples of the Shroud that it doesn’t hold are invalid.
But as Garza-Valdes pointed out at the time, he had been personally given the fibres by Riggi, from a container in Riggi’s house, which had the seal of the then Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero’s on it, and Garza-Valdes had a photograph of it to prove it. So Garza- Valdes is a witness (and there are others) to the fact that Riggi, with the tacit permission of the then Archbishop of Turin, kept back a `reserve sample’ of the Shroud that he cut for the three C-14 laboratories in 1988.
However, if one wants to be super-sceptical, then to be consistent he/she would have to grant that the conspiracy theorists have a point that no one can absolutely prove that the Shroud samples tested by the three C-14 laboratories in 1988 were not switched, for the sample from the 13th century cope of St. Louis d’Anjou, which was a last-minute inclusion as a control in the samples given to the three C-14 laboratories to test."""

bippy123 wrote:Ok there is now an additional blogpost on shroud story blog about this and Stephen Jones posted his response under the shroud story blog article. Here is his response.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/29/barri ... /#comments

""
Stephen E. Jones

March 29, 2013 at 3:53 am | #1 Reply | Quote
>So the biggest issue so far seems to be the validity of Fanti’s samples
Ever since Mexican paediatrician and microbiologist Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes was given fibres by Riggi in 1993 from his `reserve sample’ and claimed that he had found fragments of Jesus’ DNA on it, and published his results in a 1998 book with the sensationalised title, “The DNA of God?” it has been the Vatican’s `party line’ that any claimed samples of the Shroud that it doesn’t hold are invalid.
But as Garza-Valdes pointed out at the time, he had been personally given the fibres by Riggi, from a container in Riggi’s house, which had the seal of the then Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero’s on it, and Garza-Valdes had a photograph of it to prove it. So Garza- Valdes is a witness (and there are others) to the fact that Riggi, with the tacit permission of the then Archbishop of Turin, kept back a `reserve sample’ of the Shroud that he cut for the three C-14 laboratories in 1988.
However, if one wants to be super-sceptical, then to be consistent he/she would have to grant that the conspiracy theorists have a point that no one can absolutely prove that the Shroud samples tested by the three C-14 laboratories in 1988 were not switched, for the sample from the 13th century cope of St. Louis d’Anjou, which was a last-minute inclusion as a control in the samples given to the three C-14 laboratories to test."""

It seems that Fanti is also claiming he has witnesses that will confirm that this sample was given to him by riggi and had the seal of then archbishop of turin Cardinal Ballestrero on it, plus he claims to have other witnesses to attest to it, so it can't be called dubious. My guess is that he will produce these witnesses and either before, during or after peer review is done.
So the tests themselves aren't really being contended. They just want to make sure that the samples can be validated. I don't think Fanti would have released the results if he didnt have the evidence to back up the validity of the samples given to him.

Wow Bipmeister it looks like you hit the jackpot with 777 posts! You must be feelin LUCKY!

Bip did you see the bit on GMA this morning? Reports are that all forgery theories have been debunked and all indications are that the shroud is authentic. Major media exposure today, on Good Friday. Awesome.