Posted on 02/25/2008 12:33:54 PM PST by BGHater
The Oxford laboratory that declared the Turin Shroud to be a medieval fake 20 years ago is investigating claims that its findings were wrong.
The head of the world-renowned laboratory has admitted that carbon dating tests it carried out on Christendom's most famous relic may be inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, said he was treating seriously a new theory suggesting that contamination had skewed the results.
Though he stressed that he would be surprised if the supposedly definitive 1988 tests were shown to be far out - especially "a thousand years wrong" - he insisted that he was keeping an open mind.
The development will re-ignite speculation about the four-metre linen sheet, which many believe bears the miraculous image of the crucified Christ.
The original carbon dating was carried out on a sample by researchers working separately in laboratories in Zurich and Arizona as well as Oxford.
To the dismay of Christians, the researchers concluded that the shroud was created between 1260 and 1390, and was therefore likely to be a forgery devised in the Middle Ages.
Even Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, the then Cardinal of Turin, conceded that the relic was probably a hoax.
There have been numerous theories purporting to explain how the tests could have produced false results, but so far they have all been rejected by the scientific establishment.
Many people remain convinced that the shroud is genuine.
Prof Ramsey, an expert in the use of carbon dating in archeological research, is conducting fresh experiments that could explain how a genuinely old linen could produce "younger" dates.
The results, which are due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud that is being broadcast on BBC 2 on Easter Saturday.
David Rolfe, the director of the documentary, said it was hugely significant that Prof Ramsey had thought it necessary to carry out further tests that could challenge the original dating.
He said that previous hypotheses, put forward to explain how the cloth could be older than the 1988 results suggested, had been "rejected out of hand".
"The main reason is that the contamination levels on the cloth that would have been needed to distort the results would have to be equivalent to the actual sample itself," he said.
"But this new theory only requires two per cent contamination to skew the results by 1,500 years. Moreover, it springs from published data about the behaviour of carbon-14 in the atmosphere which was unknown when the original tests were carried out 20 years ago."
Mr Rolfe added that the documentary, presented by Rageh Omaar, the former BBC correspondent, would also contain new archeological and historical evidence supporting claims that the shroud was a genuine burial cloth.
The film will focus on two other recorded relics, the Shroud of Constantinople, which is said to have been stolen by Crusaders in 1204, and the Shroud of Jerusalem that wrapped Jesus's body and which, according to John's Gospel, had such a profound effect when it was discovered.
According to Mr Rolfe, the documentary will produce convincing evidence that these are one and the same as the Shroud of Turin, adding credence to the belief that it dates back to Christ's death.
I thought it was AB negative, which is incredibly rare. It also is the same blood type as that found on the Sudarium of Oviedo.
Can you link me to the article about the shroud not having biofilm? I’m actually pretty interested to read it. The biofilm thing was a pet theory of mine, since I studied biofilm (from the inside of water pipes) in grad school.
Do a little reading on Glastonberry, England, where the first above ground Christian Church was established. [Your bitter nihilism is showing through, BTW.]
bump
It's not propaganda, as it refutes some of the commonly-recited chestnuts in favor of the Shroud. It is trying to look at the totality of the evidence and not cherry pick from either side.
Apparently you are making a compound error--
1) conflating 'skepticism' with 'materialism'
2) assuming that since 'of course' the Shroud is evidence of the Supernatural, then by definition it *must* be fake.
Maillard reactions are well known completely outside of the Shroud, as in cooking and in aging
The point being that outgassing of various organic compounds from a newly-dead body would react with the starches in the linen shroud, to colorize the fabric. Such a process would be consistent with certain aspects of the appearance of the shroud not accounted for otherwise; and would provide a more consistent mechanism then positing an unknown medieval artist who took care to fake things invisible to the naked eye, unknown to the science of his time, and inconsistent with the contemporary beliefs about crucifixion (not unique to Jesus, you know) and yet shown to be accurate later.
And all this without requiring you to give up your emotionally clung-to disbelief.
Cheers!
Most of their vehemence has to do with protecting their atheism and materialism.
Now they'll have to redouble their efforts.
Cheers!
70 inches, 5’10”, a little tall for a Jewish carpenter from 2000 years ago?.........
++
People looked up to Jesus, even then ;.)
The Glastonbury legends date from centuries, many centuries, after the events they purport to describe. There's nothing to them, historically.
Not necessarily -- recall that (if Gospel accounts are true) that the cloth was put on a pretty freshly dead body, kept out of the light and the elements, and removed after a comparatively short time.
Then there is the issue of the manner of death -- i.e. beating, physical exhaustion, crucifixion. All of these would make a difference in the internal chemical composition of the dead flesh, and could thereby affect the rate of outgassing and the specific mole fraction of the various constituents.
Put all those together and it might not be easy to replicate.
(...for the nonce, I could never grow Rock Candy crystals for the Scout projects, nor decent crystals in organic lab; but I accept the models and the empirical evidence of crystallization nonetheless. So one or two failures might not be sufficient counterexample.)
Cheers!
PROVE - scientifically - that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old...
++++
I understood that to be 6000 years from the time Adam and Eve left the garden.
We still need to add the time of the creation, and the time they were in the garden. (Just how long were they in the garden?)
It asserts things that aren’t true, is my problem with it, and is written up by some bum who surfs Wikipedia for his info. If you love it, fine, but don’t offer it as something it is not.
Don't bite off too much at once. Are you claiming
a) all oral histories must be false?
b) oral histories are likely unrelieable (like Wikipedia)?
c) oral histories are subject to interpretation and distortion, so it is best to use them as guide, subject to physical evidence to corroborate them?
Counterexample would be (say) Schliemann and the discovery of Troy in the 1800's...quite a long time for the Renaissance and Classicist types to hang on before physical data caught up with Greek stories.
At what point does one say "well, we haven't found the physical evidence, the story must be false!"
And in this case, you have an apparent artefact which is quite consistent with certain long-standing legends.
So all you can do is shout, "McCrone said it. I believe it. That settles it!"
You're going to have to do better than that.
Cheers!
They were evidently not a poor family - and that does not, in any way, detract from Jesus or His mission ...
+++
Add to that some very expensive gifts given to Him when He was a new born.
From your comments, it appears you haven't read any of the source material given to you by anyone on this thread -- at least not carefully enough to do more than whip back, "It's not TRUE!"
You'll have to give specific examples, son.
Certain types of responses can end up making a poster look like an uninformed troll.
For example: repeated use of ad hominem;
making blanket statements about an opponent's sources, even after being corrected (e.g. Wikipedia does have its flaws, but they can be trivially shown -- and have been shown -- not to apply to this topic)
It would be more intellectually honest to take a few days and dig deeper, in order to find that some of the sources you had relied upon as authoritative have already in fact been disputed or refuted.
And you have even been given a number of face-saving ways out. You should have noted that Swordmaker for example has corrected some of the purported 'explanations' of incorrect carbon dating, and substituted others, from experts in their own field with no particular axe to grind either way. And I have pointed out an entire class of chemical reactions known and studied outside of this topic which account for the image without requiring either fakery OR the supernatural.
Shrill repetition of one's point, in the face of increasing and varied evidence to the contrary, is a mark of desperation.
Cheers!
Troy is a red herring. There are no Greek documents preceding the Iliad. The Homeric poems are rife with legend, and certainly can’t be used as history in the way that Tacitus can, but it’s easy to believe there might be some fragments of history underlying them.
The Glastonbury legends, on the other hand, come after centuries of active Christian writing on the early days of the church. Eusebius wrote a comprehensive history of the Church in 325: no mention of them. Bede wrote a comprehensive history of the English church in the 7th century: no mention of them. William of Malmesbury wrote a comprehensive history of the English Glastonbury church in the 12th century: no mention of them. Countless other writers put pen to paper over 1200 years and never said a word about it. It is not until a century later that monks revising William’s text introduce the story of Joseph of Arimathea.
1200 years of silence over a very literate period filled with people interested in the church’s early days is overpowering evidence that the legends are without truth.
and Troy was just a legend too - for far longer...oh, oops, they found it.
No, Troy is not a red herring. I hadn't heard of Glastonbury and therefore wasn't trying to comment on it at all -- I proceeded to the larger issue of the reliability of oral tradition at all.
There are no Greek documents preceding the Iliad. The Homeric poems are rife with legend, and certainly can’t be used as history in the way that Tacitus can, but it’s easy to believe there might be some fragments of history underlying them.
Yes, and then the problem is to sift out which bits. J.R.R. Tolkien had a couple of interesting essays on this (e.g. Tree and Leaf. The issue seems to be that a large number of people reject ab initio any suggestion of the supernatural or of (say) prophecy; although, oddly enough, many of the same people enjoy such themes in science fiction, such as H.P. Lovecraft or Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.
It comes down in such cases to dogmatism vs. degrees of evidence; scholasticism vs. empiricism; and other such topics too long to get into now.
1200 years of silence over a very literate period filled with people interested in the church’s early days is overpowering evidence that the legends are without truth.
Not necessarily, as communication and archaeology were not as accomplished then as now; how long was it until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered? There may *happen* to be documents relating the story of Joseph of Arimathea which have not yet been discovered; or which were briefly discovered, incorporated, and then lost again; or whatever.
I'm not arguing for the truth of the Glastonbury legends, nor against them, as I hadn't heard of them until this thread. I *am* suggesting that the lack of coverage of this topic need not be disposative as you suggest...which brings us back to Troy. Even highly dramatized oral history may contain historical fact; and lack of external corroborating evidence should not be used as *proof* of falsehood all by itself.
Cheers!
It’s beyond me why you’re so attached to the “Skeptical Inquirer” site. It asserts things as fact that aren’t true, like the BS that the “blood” on the shroud is real, and yes, if you’re pulling your information off of Wikipedia it’s a strong sign you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You can ad hominem me all you please, I’m not going to say the sky is green and filled with fire-breathing reindeer.
Troy is a red herring for the reasons I explained.
Your defense of the Glastonbury legends is pretty complacent; sure, somebody found a diary written by Joseph in a cave, then lost it. There’s no reason to think any of this.
If someone wants to believe the validity of the Glastonbury legends, they’re welcome to enjoy it. But there’s a reason no historian takes them seriously and I just gave it. The tradition that Jesus murdered people as a child then brought them back to life again has better pedigree.
First actual assertion.
Five minutes googling and reading on "shroud of turin blood" led me to this.
Seems to make utter mincemeat of McCrone --
just a few examples...
McCrone did not use controls for old blood
McCrone's description of the characterization of particles changed over time (1980 he identified them as iron oxide and in 1996 as red ochre)
McCrone performed some of his tests (e.g. birefringence) on particles attached to a matrix which would itself interfere with his tests
Some of McCrone's work has been unable to be duplicated by other groups working independently on the same samples.
Try reading the whole thing.
Cheers!
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.