All I can say is:
Posted on 01/26/2005 10:37:01 PM PST by neverdem
The Shroud of Turin is much older than the medieval date that modern science has affixed to it and could be old enough to have been the burial wrapping of Jesus, a new analysis concludes.
Since 1988, most scientists have confidently concluded that it was the work of a medieval artist, because carbon dating had placed the production of the fabric between 1260 and 1390.
In an article this month in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a chemist retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, said the carbon dating test was valid but that the piece tested was about the size of a postage stamp and came from a portion that had been patched.
"We're darned sure that part of the cloth was not original Shroud of Turin cloth," he said, adding that threads from the main part of the shroud were pure linen, which is spun from flax.
The threads in the patched portion contained cotton as well and had been dyed to match.
From other tests, he estimated that the shroud was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
All I can say is:
I kinda doubt it. I think the Bishop just wanted the samples taken from the "least-damaging to the image" parts of the shroud, and just didn't understand the possibility of contamination and the effect it could have on the analytical results.
So the issue isn't that we can't do something as well as Stradivarius, just that we can't figure out exactly how he uniquely did what he did.
If we're in disagreement, I don't see it.
BTW, here's an interesting article: Science and the Stradivarius
None. BFD. It's still a really cool artifact ...
>> I would point out that this is classic begging the question, which is a logical fallacy you learn the first day of philosophy 101, but this guy is a scientist and the scientists on FR tell us that non-scientists are not qualified to criticize the logic of scientists. <<
No, scientists on FR tell you that certain conclusions of scientists are sound. I think every evolution-believing scientist on FR could supply with you howlers that were taken as science. First off: Steven Hawking. But Steven Hawking is not presented as fact in science classes, only in the Washington Post and Newsweek.
>>"Because the Catholic Bishop in charge of the Shroud dictated the areas they could take samples from and how much could be taken."<<
>>Interesting, so some religious guy in bed with anti-religious guys?<<
More likely bad luck. He was probably directing them to samples which would least affect the image.
Let's presume this is a miracle. That means God wanted it preserved. That means were the shroud to be damaged, and need repair, God would only allow the least essential areas to be damaged.
Now, suppose there is a bishop who doesn't realize that the shroud had been damaged in such a way. He wants to allow scientists to conduct a study, which necessitates damaging the shroud. He'll order the scientists to study the least essential areas.
Go figure the bishop happened to have the same sense of what portions are the least essential as God did.
The point simply being that there's a difference between not knowing how a uniqueness was achieved (Stradivarius), and not knowing how to accomplish a task (the shroud).
Shroud ping, please.
Nevertheless, it became an object of worship (in fact, several scholars believe it became the prototype for the Greek god of healing, Aescelepus, whose symbol is a serpent on a staff), so Hoshea had it destroyed.
Brilliant comment! What points of fact do you disagree with; that published in the a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Ray Rogers is a friend. We exchange emails frequently. He actually stopped working on the Shroud several years ago because he refused to be an apologist. He resumed work after retirement from the Los Alamos Labs.
He is not popular with some of the apologists because he has challenged the notion of coin images over the eyes, disputes some of the pollen evidence, argues against miraculous causation of the images (he has demonstrated how an amino/carbonyl reaction might have created the images). Mostly he is open minded.
He set out to disprove the hypothesis of a reweaving, a patch. He set out to prove that Benford and Marino were wrong. To his surprise he found evidence that they were right. That was in 2002. In December of 2004 he obtained some of the original carbon 14 sample -- only about half of it was distributed to the labs. He subjected it to numerous tests. He found Madder root dye, alum and gum mordant. He wrote an article for peer review. The review alone took six months. He also sent some of his sample to John Brown at Georgia Tech (no apologist either) for confirmation. Brown is a leading materials forensics expert. Brown used other approaches including SEM. He found clear evidence that the sample was patched and dyed.
Rogers and I disagree on some things. But his integrity as a scientist is above reproach. I trust him. So does the rest of the Shroud research community. Some folks don't like is very pragmatic approach and his refusal to discuss anything religious about the Shroud. Some of the Turin authorities don't like the way he refuses to accept their guidance or approaches. I like that about him.
His science on the Shroud is solid.
Dan
Oh, sorry... I was focussing on the Asherah. Yes, I see your point about the serpent. I'll keep a look out to make sure that no-one offers incense to the Shroud of Turin.
How could a forger forge a negative image when negative images did not become known until the advent of photography 500 years later? It would have been impossible for him to forge something that he could not even imagine. The same principle applies to the embedded 3D characteristics of the Shroud.
How can I forge something today that won't be discovered until the year 2500 A.D.?
>> So which is it 'luck' or the working of God... Personally speaking I would be 'red' in the face had I been in charge of this piece of cloth and I had picked a portion of it that would discredit the authenticity of it, and I would not be blaming God.<<
Both. Where do you get the idea that it was 100% one or the other? There are significant portions of the shroud which were damaged. They happened to be in places where the image wasn't, the non-essential areas. Maybe that was just good luck, also, but it makes sense that the shroud is a miracle, than preserving the shroud may also be miraculous.
But the bishop selected a region of the cloth where the shroud had been damaged and repaired. Since much of the non-essential region of the shroud had been damaged, simple dumb luck is sufficient to explain how he happened to pick an area that had been repaired.
There's no blaming God involved, and frankly, I think you're being quite silly and unreasonable to read that as me or the bishop blaming God.
I'd prefer to smarten up the worshippers.
We should be respectful with it, but only as a testimony of the risen Christ,
Primarily.
not as an object from which we might derive mirculous power.
I agree, but you can't dismiss this out of hand.
The point simply being that there's a difference between not knowing how a uniqueness was achieved (Stradivarius), and not knowing how to accomplish a task (the shroud).
I agree with that.
I still wonder what a good art forger would be able to accomplish, but having looked at the link that shroudie posted in post #51, I would agree that it looks like it would be a challenge.
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.