Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: The simple issue here is that even IF the C14 test were ok ( they weren't), the fact that they were done on a part of the shroud that was known to be a replacement/repair simply means that, THAT part was from the 14th century.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the C14 tests not being OK.

Do you agree, in general, that C14 dating is reliable, if done according to scientifically accepted protocols?

If so, do you agree that the C14 dating tests were reliable for the sampled section, regardless of whether that section was a 14th century repair patch or not? For example, based on everything that you think you know, if the C14 tests had given an 10th century date, would you be more confident of a 10th or a 14th century origin for that "repair" patch?

PaulSacramento wrote: Seems to me that Morny is focusing on what he wants to see and disregarding the rest.
Not sure why though...

You should know - I've said here that finding common ground first is important. So far we haven't. And if we cannot find common ground on the simplest of statements about radiometric dating, then debate is futile.

Paraphrasing Sheldon Cooper, I'm not stupid - my mother had me tested.

No, I don't agree since, as it has been pointed out, numerous protocols were violated.
BUT, even if the test were ok, it was only ONE line of evidence and on a non-original piece.

If some group came to you or published that they tested the frame of the Mona Lisa, a frame that was redone in the 1800's and concludes that because the frame was carbon dated to the 1800's that the Mona Lisa is a fake, would you believe them?

Morny would , now because it's logical , rational or scientific to do so but because it helps him feel more secure in his atheism

PaulSacramento wrote: No, I don't agree since, as it has been pointed out, numerous protocols were violated.

Sorry. Please remind me what specific standard radiometric dating protocols all the labs violated?

PaulSacramento wrote: If some group came to you or published that they tested the frame of the Mona Lisa, a frame that was redone in the 1800's and concludes that because the frame was carbon dated to the 1800's that the Mona Lisa is a fake, would you believe them?

No. A frame usually does not associate with the current painting's creation.

See how easy answering a direct question is?

Philip wrote: Carbon 14 tests - or ANY kind of test - done on a well-known, centuries-later repair portion, is ultimately irrelevant. Why the pointless question trying to establish whether someone sees carbon 14 testing as a valid measure - that's a pure rabbit trail that is entirely meaningless!

My specific and narrow radiometric point has nothing to do with refuting shroud authenticity.

I want to establish the credibility of a witness (radiometric dating), so that later, the defense cannot claim my witness is unreliable.

I have more witnesses to swear in.

Here's a good overview of Carbon 14 testing, from Reasons to Believe. It can be a very good tool, but it also has its challenges:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-tru ... bon-dating

A few interesting outtake quotes from the article:

"Finding the initial amount of carbon-14 poses the most significant complications for extracting accurate radiocarbon dates."

"Given this knowledge, to extract a radiocarbon age for an organism one needs to know the initial and final amounts of carbon-14 as well as the half-life. Although conceptually simple, difficulties and complications arise when trying to measure these three parameters, and a misstep anywhere usually leads to an incorrect date."

"... one must avoid sample contamination with other carbon sources."

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: No, I don't agree since, as it has been pointed out, numerous protocols were violated.

Sorry. Please remind me what specific standard radiometric dating protocols all the labs violated?

PaulSacramento wrote: If some group came to you or published that they tested the frame of the Mona Lisa, a frame that was redone in the 1800's and concludes that because the frame was carbon dated to the 1800's that the Mona Lisa is a fake, would you believe them?

No. A frame usually does not associate with the current painting's creation.

See how easy answering a direct question is?

The info is in the Shroud thread, which you are familiar with and I am not going to do your legwork.
And you are correct when you say:

A frame usually does not associate with the current painting's creation

And neither would any addition to the shroud have anything to do with the rest.

So...

Because I am nice:
http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/c ... 823/page-4

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marinelliv.pdf

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

and to summerise:

Radiocarbon Dating Red Flags
There were other clues, as well. All of them were warning signs that something might be wrong with the carbon 14 samples:

Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated, "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …" (emphasis mine)


Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sampling, wrote: “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.” (emphasis mine)


Edward (Teddy) Hall, head of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, had noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in Derbyshire concluded that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.” Derbyshire's Peter South wrote: “It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past…”


Gilbert Raes, when later he examined some of the carbon 14 samples, noticed that cotton fibers were contained inside the threads, which could help to explain differences in fiber diameter. This may also explain why the carbon 14 samples apparently weighed much more than was as expected.


Alan Adler at Western Connecticut State University found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. Why aluminum? That was an important question because it is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.


The radiocarbon lab at the University of Arizona conducted eight tests. But there was a wide variance in the computed dates and so the team in Arizona combined results to produce four results thus eliminating the more outlying dates (reportedly they did so at the request of the British Museum, which was overseeing the tests). Even then, according to Remi Van Haelst, a retired industrial chemist in Belgium, the results failed to meet minimum statistical standards (chi-squared tests). Why the wide variance in the dates? Was it because of testing errors? Or was it because the sample was not sufficiently homogeneous? The latter seems very likely now, and the statistical anomaly indicates something very suspicious about the samples.


Bryan Walsh, a statistician, examined Van Haelst’s analysis and further studied the measurements. He concluded that the divided samples used in multiple tests contained different levels of the C14 isotope. The overall cut sample was non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between the measured age of various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. Though Walsh did not suggest invisible reweaving, it is consistent with his findings.

Paul next time you are to bring facts to morny make sure they fit his worldview
Shroud research has been pretty silent lately .
I wish some scientist would throw us a bone

Philip wrote: [... quoting reasons.org ...]

Not sure why you're quoting a source identifying difficulties with radiocarbon dating.

Right now, I'm only asking whether you agree that the labs accurately dated the cloth sample to the 14th century.

For example, are you claiming the tested cloth sample was from a 14th century repair? If so, then the labs did accurately date the sample. Yes?

Or are you claiming that the science of radiocarbon dating itself is generally unable to determine reasonably accurate age dates?

PaulSacramento wrote: The info is in the Shroud thread, which you are familiar with and I am not going to do your legwork.
[...]

You're making the claim about the labs' radiometric dating: "numerous protocols were violated".

Name your worst one (or maybe two), so that I can investigate what you're talking about in your references, and/or the 93 page long shroud thread here.

Or if, maybe like Philip, you seem to be claiming the cloth sample was from a 14th century repair, then with all your referenced caveats, how were all the labs able to accurately date the sample to the 14th century?!

Or are you making the extreme claim that the science of radiocarbon dating itself is generally unable to determine reasonably accurate dates?

For example, are you claiming the tested cloth sample was from a 14th century repair? If so, then the labs did accurately date the sample. Yes?

I am not saying that carbon 14 dating is worthless - it's a very important tool. But the factor concerning the Shroud isn't just that the sample tested was done upon samples taken from a far-later repaired portion - the Shroud was also in proximity to two fires. That's also gotta be a problem. At least four articles have been published in scholarly journals that assert the threads tested were not representative of the original (unrepaired) portions of the Shroud. I don't think anyone here is saying that carbon 14 is totally unreliable. It is apparently pretty reliable within established controls and parameters. Until a clearly original portion of the Shroud is tested - by carbon 14 or whatever - this is a pointless discussion.

Philip wrote: [...] the sample tested was done upon samples taken from a far-later repaired portion [...]

So radiocarbon did accurately dated the medieval age for the repair swatch, which also had a complex herringbone weave, which is not only typical for that medieval period, but also unknown before that.

Philip wrote: the Shroud was also in proximity to two fires. That's also gotta be a problem.

But obviously not a problem for the accurate radiocarbon dating of the medieval swatch.

BTW, all 3 labs did a painstaking examination (microscopic, spectroscopic, ...) of their samples for problematic conditions (soot, chemicals, ...), before running the radiocarbon tests. How incompetent do you think all three of the top labs in the world have to be not to make even a footnote about such a problem in their reports?

Philip wrote: At least four articles have been published in scholarly journals that assert the threads tested were not representative of the original (unrepaired) portions of the Shroud.

Irrelevant to this current discussion. You're claiming the swatches are more recent repair jobs. I'm provisionally granting that assumption.

And BTW, the Vatican used two top cloth experts to carefully select swatches representative of the entire shroud. How incompetent do you think both experts were to not recognize a medieval repair job?

Philip wrote: Until a clearly original portion of the Shroud is tested - by carbon 14 or whatever - this is a pointless discussion.

OK, you got me. White eating breakfast, I laughed so hard at this claim, milk came out through my nose. You and I both know that such a test would do nothing to affect your belief.

On the other hand, I would be ecstatic if the cloth dated to 1st century. That result would be way more interesting to me and for science.

So basically, we have this piece of cloth that the Vatican wont allow anyone to test for authenticity.

OK, you got me. While eating breakfast, I laughed so hard at this claim, milk came out through my nose. You and I both know that such a test would do nothing to affect your belief.

You are correct - the argument over the carbon testing alters nothing, precisely because it proves NOTHING - because the carbon 14 testing talk is pointless! You and I KNOW that it is key to test the correct and original materials - and ACCURATELY so. So, there are assumptions 1) you have the right materials tested and 2) you must insure there are not some other factors involved. This is what all experts assert about carbon 14 testing - you have to control for various things that might skew the results. Yet these are not even relevant to this situation. You are trying to make this an argument over testing - of WHAT - if you can't know the answer to that, then this is irrelevant. Not to mention NONE of this discounts the incredibly powerful elements about the Shroud that cannot be presently replicated, that no forger would have the expertise or knowledge to do, nor the knowledge of the pollens, or the science of TWO-sided, 3-dimensional, spatial imagery, or negative photographic imagery, that is anatomically perfect - so I hope you realize how silly your failure to explain these highly complex and technical things by focusing on an argument that is pointless. So, the strategy appears to be, let's get people arguing over some irrelevant point so as to distract away from the far more powerful and compelling evidences that no scientist can explain. The ancient forger theory is so ridiculous that I would think even an atheist would realize it. Well, that is, except an atheist has his dial set to "let nothing in that might possibly cause me to question my unbelief!" Anyone doing just a bit of research should quickly realize this is not just some faked artifact that is easily dismissed, despite the clueless who claim so.

Audie wrote:So basically, we have this piece of cloth that the Vatican wont allow anyone to test for authenticity.

No, the Vatican testing cooperation was helpful. Although the Vatican didn't give over exactly the cloth samples that the scientists wanted, the reached compromise satisfied both the Vatican and the scientists.

The radiocarbon test results, by themselves, are consistent with the theory that the plant materials (for making the cloth) being grown in the early 14th century.

For most of us normal people and for nearly all science people, the radiocarbon tests answered the shroud's authenticity question.