Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Atheists act like fundamentalists - Shroud of Turin commentary
Shroud of Turin Blog ^ | 10/07/2008

Posted on 10/11/2008 11:21:31 PM PDT by Swordmaker

When Atheists act like Fundamentalists

October 7, 2008

On his blog, “Ssnot! - God Snot, Where God’s Not!”, Tatarize writes: 

So I am apparently retarded. I watched something called the Shroud of Turin which was get this, about the Shroud of Turin and completely bogus nonsense.

The argument went like this,

The Shroud of Turin carbon dates to the 1360s. The Shroud of Turin was first seen around 1325. However, there were other fake shrouds which purported to be the burial cloths of Christ which dated back to the 11th century. So the Shroud of Turin dates back to the 11th century. There’s also some hood thing which dates back to the 5th century so clearly the Shroud dates back to the fifth century (because both of them have blood) that look nothing alike in pattern (it seriously overlays them and they look nothing alike). And therefore the Shroud of Turin is 5th century. However, we also know that the Gospels say Jesus was crucified and we have this cloth and so this cloth clearly dates back to the first century.

The first thing is to misstate the facts with a bit of incredulous drama. Let’s begin with the first sentence, “The Shroud of Turin carbon dates to the 1360s.” In fact, the results of carbon dating undertaken in 1988 estimated the date of the cloth between 1260 and 1390 C.E. This was reported in Nature, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

If we focus on peer-reviewed scientific journals, which is appropriate, we discover that those carbon dating tests have been roundly discredited. One need only refer to Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425, Issues 1-2 , 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194) and Chemistry Today (July/August 2008) to understand why. Robert Villarreal who led a team of nine scientists at the prestigious Los Alamos National Laboratory, using some of the most advanced methods and spectra tools, confirmed the findings in those journal accounts. He stated that the sample area was significantly unlike the rest of the shroud. In other words it is almost certain that the shroud itself was not carbon dated.

Christopher Ramsey, the current head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, a lab that participated in the original carbon 14 dating of the Shroud, states on the Oxford website (posted in March of 2008) that because of new information “further research is certainly needed.” He went on to say:

It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information.

Atheists are quick to point out, correctly so, that many Christians ignore scientific and historical evidence, particularly when it comes to evolution. Yet, some Atheists do exactly this themselves. It is fine to believe that the shroud is not the real thing, but do so with facts that are correct. Draw conclusions from those facts. Make a good case. Don’t be a fundamentalist. We don’t know in certain terms the age of the shroud or its provenance. To assert that it is fake in the absence of real evidence takes a leap of faith no less than it does to assert that it is real.

Let’s look at some other points from the posting:

  1. “The Shroud of Turin was first seen around 1325.”  — Actually the correct statement is that the earliest known written record of the shroud in Western Europe was in 1349 C.E.

  2. “However, there were other fake shrouds which purported to be the burial cloths of Christ which dated back to the 11th century.” — Let’s drop the word “fake” unless there is evidence to support that little bit of well poisoning. There is a drawing of what seems to be the shroud that dates to 1194 (late 12th century). There are documented descriptions of a burial shroud (not plural) from 944 that might be the Shroud of Turin. There is good but imperfect historical evidence that connects the dots between 944 and 1349. As with almost all records of artifacts from antiquity there are gaps in reliable documentation. This is normal. But one thing that seems quite certain, the same cloth documented in Constantinople in 944 is the same cloth that existed in the ancient city of Edessa in 544 C.E. Any trace that goes back beyond that, from a historical point of view ceases to be hypothesis and rests on the backs of legend and difficult-to-assess ancient writings.  So we really can’t say. Possibility and plausibility is the best that we can do at this time.

  3. “There’s also some hood thing which dates back to the 5th century so clearly the Shroud dates back to the fifth century (because both of them have blood) that look nothing alike in pattern (it seriously overlays them and they look nothing alike).” — I suspect that Tatarize is referring to the Sudarium of Oviedo. The earliest plausible date for this cloth is the seventh century not the fifth. Records suggest that its journey to its present location began in 644 C.E. when Persians under Chosroes II invaded Jerusalem. To protect the Sudarium, it was moved out of the city to safety. We are uncertain of its route to Spain. It may have been first taken to Alexandria along with numerous other relics (real or otherwise, and stored in a chest or “ark”) and from there, in succeeding years, along the coast of North Africa ahead of advancing armies. Some historians have suggested a more direct sea route to Spain, but forensic pollen evidence indicates that the Sudarium was in North Africa, just as the presence of other pollen spores evidences that it was at one time in the Jerusalem environs. Whatever the route, we know that after it arrived in Spain, it was kept in Toledo for about 75 years. For some time after it arrived, it was in the custody of an early-medieval scholar, Isidore of Seville. Then in 718, to protect it from Arab armies, which had invaded Spain only seven years earlier, it was moved northward with fleeing Christians. In 761, Oviedo became the capital of a northern, well-defended enclave of Christians on the Iberian Peninsula and it was to this city that the Sudarium was brought for safekeeping. It has been in Oviedo ever since. As for the bloodstains matching the patterns of bloodstains on the shroud, it seems that they do. No the patterns don’t look alike. That isn’t what pattern matching is all about. It is at the margins, relative placement and the juxtaposition of certain features that the patterns match. It is fine to argue that they don’t match, but that argument requires more substance than a vague doesn’t look alike. “I think I see” and “I think I don’t see” are the weakest types of scientific argument: the tools of fundamentalist thinking.

  4. “However, we also know that the Gospels say Jesus was crucified and we have this cloth and so this cloth clearly dates back to the first century.” — This point doesn’t make any sense. That is not what the BBC special said.

  5. “The carbon 14 dating must be wrong! Perhaps some carbon-14 mixed into the linen via carbon monoxide. *tests* — Nope that doesn’t work at all. Still, it’s a mystery!” — That was a major weakness in the BBC documentary. So far as I know, only John Jackson of Colorado Springs thinks this is a possible explanation. Not a single scientist that I know agrees with him. But, yes, the carbon dating is wrong.

  6. “I am utterly astounded at how many hoaxes people buy into lock stock and barrel.” — I agree. But it can cut both ways.

  7. “In the end, I lost an hour of my time watching . . .” — Yes, I think you did.  And more time writing about it with a complete lack of understanding. Too bad.

Shroud research needs skeptics who will engage the science and the history of this unsolved mystery. That ultimately is the best way for Christians and Atheists alike to resolve the truth about this cloth.



TOPICS: Arts/Photography; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: antheism; antichristian; atheistsupremacist; medievalhoax; religiousintolerance; shroudofturin; sudariumofoviedo; veronicaveil
from the sidebar:


IS IT REAL?

Scientifically, we don't know the age of the Shroud of Turin. However, we do know it is at least twice as old as the now discredited carbon 14 date. As for the images, we have no idea how they are formed. But they were not made by any known artistic method.

The Atheist, the skeptic, the rationalist must accept the scientific facts just as any Christian should. To deny that the shroud is authentic requires a leap of faith. So does affirmation. But the evidence suggests that it is a late-Second Temple era burial shroud of a crucifixion victim. From that, much can be inferred.


1 posted on 10/11/2008 11:21:31 PM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; albee; AnalogReigns; AnAmericanMother; Angelas; AniGrrl; annyokie; Aquinasfan; ...
When Atheists act like Fundamentalists... in relation to the Shroud of Turin. PING!

I suspect this blog is run by Shroudie... but I don't know for sure.

If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.


2 posted on 10/11/2008 11:24:06 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

That’s because some Atheists are Fundamentally against G-d.


3 posted on 10/11/2008 11:41:40 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Thanks for the ping!


4 posted on 10/11/2008 11:50:40 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Why would being resurrected make an image on the shroud anyway?


5 posted on 10/12/2008 5:52:12 AM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Thanx for the ping. Keep an eye out for more for us.


6 posted on 10/12/2008 5:59:04 AM PDT by pyrless (If you're gonna burn our flag, make sure you wrap yourself in it first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman
Not by anything other than happenstance: the image is (as best as we can tell so far) the result of Maillard reactions between coating left on the linen shroud, and various gases emanating from a corpse (putrescine, cadaverine, etc.).

What the Resurrection did is twofold:

1) interrupt the process, so that any further degradation of the body which *would* have happened (together with any effects this would have on the shroud) was arrested. This meant that we had a snapshot in time of the chemical reactions between the body and the shroud.

2) leave an empty shroud around with an image on it, so that people might happen to notice.

It is important to note that we don't knwo the exact conditions under which the image was formed: temperature, humditiy, any spices or such used to prepare the body; the exact duration between time of death and burial; and the condition of the body when placed in the shroud (e.g. beating, possible dehydration, crucifixion, etc.) -- all of which might have effects on the condition of the body. (Bruising and rupturing of cells will leak the contents of the cells outside of the cell walls) -- which might affect the rate of decay or the relative composition of any decay prodcuts initially.)

It is also important to note that if the shroud is really of a crucified man, theft of the body (as alleged in atheist schlock book "The Passover Plot") would interrupt the process as surely as a Resurrection.

So accepting a 1st-century provenance for the shroud, and even accepting that the man whose image is on the shroud was crucified, does not disqualify any other suggestions about the shroud due to "superstitious nonsense about the Resurrection."

Cheers!

7 posted on 10/12/2008 6:06:34 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

“the image is (as best as we can tell so far) the result of Maillard reactions between coating left on the linen shroud, and various gases emanating from a corpse (putrescine, cadaverine, etc.).”

I don’t put much into this theory. The shroud image shows evidence of bone and dental structure, which doesn’t fit with a putrification theory.


8 posted on 10/12/2008 7:04:40 AM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

9 posted on 10/12/2008 7:40:00 AM PDT by Goonch (Bagarius "goonch” Yarrelli - my friends call me Goonch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Das Sudarium von Oviedo, Spanien. Die sensationelle Reliquie stimmt laut Untersuchungen von 1989 exakt mit dem legendären Grabtuch von Turin überein. Selbst das Blut auf dem Sudarium, die seltene Gruppe AB, entspricht dem Grabtuch von Turin. Zufall?

10 posted on 10/12/2008 8:02:43 AM PDT by Goonch (Bagarius "goonch” Yarrelli - my friends call me Goonch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
Yes, those skeletal features are there.

But the reaction of the coating of the linen is present in the image regions of the Shroud; it has been verified microscopically and its thickness and composition has been characterized. So it is not "merely a theory".

The mechanism of formation of all features of the image remain unknown -- this is not the same as "must be a fraud" or "must be a miracle". I place it in the "hey, cool!" category.

Cheers!

11 posted on 10/12/2008 9:16:06 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood; grey_whiskers
I don’t put much into this theory. The shroud image shows evidence of bone and dental structure, which doesn’t fit with a putrification theory.

We now KNOW what the image is composed of... and the fine coating of a caramel like substance on the fibers of the image area CAN be created by a Maillard reaction. However, we really don't know that a Maillard reaction was all that was required to created the image. For example, Maillard reactions will occur over time but are usually very slow at normal environmental temperatures. Adding heat, as we do in cooking, will accelerate those reactions. We use this accleration to our benefit, converting sugars into tasty caramels.

Outgassing of such gasses as putrescine and cadaverine would have to follow the laws of gasses which would tend to cause the gasses to dissipate and expand into the atmosphere. The image on the Shroud, however, shows that whatever caused the formation of the image acted in a vertically collimated manner in seeming violation of those gas laws.

It is intriguing that it seemed to have worked only, and equally well, in both vertical vectors, up and down, with absolutely no horizontal vector at all. Gasses don't rise and also fall at the same time at the same temperature, and they certainly don't remain in a column both up and down. Perhaps, putrescine falls and cadaverine rises, or vice verse? I don't know if anyone has done any experiments to determine this.

Perhaps something that radiated from within the body, collimated vertically, and partially shadowed by the internal bony structure, acted as an accelerant to the Maillard reaction only in its direction of action, thereby leaving the imprint of those bones, the metacarpals in the hands and the frontal teeth, in the image. Whatever it was, had to have acted cohesively (almost like a laser) both upward and downward but not with any appreciable amount or angle in any other vector, otherwise the resolution of the image would have suffered and blurred out.

Another problem is that whatever caused the image imprint, effected both living and dead tissue such as the hair and also caused the creation of images of herbs placed around the body (which possibly supported the Shroud over the body, thereby presenting a more flattened receiver).

12 posted on 10/12/2008 12:07:12 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Excellent points all.

Whatever it was, had to have acted cohesively (almost like a laser) both upward and downward but not with any appreciable amount or angle in any other vector, otherwise the resolution of the image would have suffered and blurred out.

What is intriguing about this, is that there does not seem to be any *diffusion* of the gases, so that the image remains sharp, with no information being propagated horizontally; secondly, as pointed out, what is it that caused skeletal details, shadows of plants, etc. to show up?

Cheers!

13 posted on 10/12/2008 12:45:09 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Goonch

Das Sudarium von Oviedo, Spanien. Die sensationelle Reliquie stimmt laut Untersuchungen von 1989 exakt mit dem legendären Grabtuch von Turin überein. Selbst das Blut auf dem Sudarium, die seltene Gruppe AB, entspricht dem Grabtuch von Turin. Zufall?

"The Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain. The sensational relic corresponds accurately with the legendary Shroud of Turin according to investigations of 1989. Even the blood on the Sudarium, the rare group AB, corresponds to the Shroud of Turin."

14 posted on 10/12/2008 1:55:12 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson