Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Dating & The Shroud of Turin
BlackTyranny writes "The Shroud of Turin, carbon dated in 1978 by a team of scientists, may be far older than originally thought. Raymond N. Rogers, a retired chemist from the University of California-operated Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, part of the original team, used samples given to him in 2003 from the Cardinal of Turin's scientific advisor. Roger's contends that the carbon dating might be faulty because "the people who cut the sample didn't do a very good job of characterizing the samples," that is, taking samples from many areas of the cloth." I think the shroud 'Patch' may be made of the big foot suit. ;)
Who decided to patch the shroud along the way?
Yes. It's a forgery from the middle-ages. That this even comes up again is surprising. What's next? "Piltdown Man Might Be Real, Crackpot Says!"?
right to insult is the most precious one.
especially the right to insult someone who has beliefs that are not based on anything real and beliefs which can't really do any more good than not having them(you don't need to believe in god as a person and in bible literatally to be a good, honest, caring person - in fact, you can believe in them and read them literally and be everything a good person should not be.. most of jesus's part in it is focused on saying "hey it doesn't matter that much, just be good guys and it'll be ok" rather than telling everyone to fight in the name of god).
nobody can ever prove anything about this cloth so it's merely a curiosity of medieval beliefs... they were worth a lot of money in the right hands too.
there's nothing DUMB about joking about a piece of cloth that shouldn't really be worth anything to you if you believed it to be real.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Is how the image was produced in the first place. As best as I know, it's unique to (at least) medievil tech. Does anyone out there have a good scientific explaination for it? Perhaps it could be a History Channel show, "God Tech".
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Leviticus 19:19
King James Bible: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind. Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed. Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
Good News Bible: Obey my orders. Do not crossbreed your cattle. Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothing made from two kinds of fiber.
Rape is still rape. God is a rapist. And if Mary had a child by someone who wasn't her husband, having children out of wedlock, by men who aren't the husband, etc. should most certainly not be a sin. But the Christian hypocrites won't have that, will they?
The weird thing about this shroud (one of many) is that when it was discovered, the Vatican sent one of their best investigators to the site of discovery to figure out if the shroud was real or not. They had their doubs. The investigator concluded the shroud was a forgery when inspecting it (it didn't match the story in the book in his opinion) but he wasn't satisfied with just that. He wanted to be 100% sure. He became 100% sure when he found the individual who had produced the shroud and the invidual admitted it was he who had made it.
The fact that (primarily american) religious nuts still talk about the "authenticity" of the shroud today just proves that people prefer fiction to reality.
Guys: It is a forgery. The forgerer was found and admitted his forgery. Get over it.
Lots of people died back then and where wrapped in a cloth
...yet their bodies left no visible image on the cloth. This one somehow did. I'm afraid you're missing this point now.
The National Geographic channel last night aired an hour-long investigation into the mystery of the shroud of turin. NG was made the argument that Leonardo Da Vinci created the shroud. Anyone who's interested should check it out.
NG claimed that Da Vinci had family ties to the church that housed the shroud, thus creating a link between how the shroud could have been obtained by the church.
NG made other intereresting links and arguments.
I found it particuarly amusing that the image on the shroud is extremely similar to Da Vinci's own self portrait. It seems well within Leonardo's personality to pull such a prank that has lasted for centuries.
As for the actual age of the shroud, as long as it was *before* Leonardo's time, he could have obtained the material. If his goal was to trick the people of his time with the shroud he probably would have sought an older-looking one anyway.
From nationalgeographic.com: Behind the Mysteries Week: "Da Vinci and the Mystery of the Shroud" at 8P et/pt Jesus's image, believers say, was burned into the Shroud of Turin by the intense heat of resurrection. But is it genuine? Or was it created by someone with extraordinary skills, like the great Leonardo Da Vinci?
______________________________________
The Sunday Times [28 November 2004]
Andrew Sullivan: Where the Bible bashers are sinful and the liberals pure
. . .
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways they were the two states competing in the last election. One is the home of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes and social permissiveness.
The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for John Kerry over George W Bush 62% to 37%; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61% to 38%.
Ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in fact Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas, which until recently made private gay sex a crime, has a divorce rate of 4.1.
A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Every one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate is roughly 50% higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt and many do not have the maturity to know what they are getting into. There is some correlation, too, between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging behind a highly educated state such as Massachusetts.
The irony still holds, however. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that socially troubled communities cling to absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
Doesn't being born again help to bring down divorce rates? Jesus was clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not; 29% of Baptists have been divorced, compared with 21% of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23% of married born agains have been divorced twice or more.
Teenage births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state such as Texas where the religious right is strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, teen births as a percentage of all births are 16.1%. In liberal, secular Massachusetts they are 7.4%, less than half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas the proportion of people unmarried is 32.4%; in Massachusetts it is 26.8%. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts has a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Take abortion. America is one of the few western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It is a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it with a country such as Holland, perhaps the epitome of social liberalism. Which country has the highest rate of abortion? It is not even close. America has a rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
. . .
More at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-13782 27,00.html
Well, ok lets think about this logically. We already have several possible reasons for the inaccuracy of the carbon dating. This is just yet another look at the dating method used to show that is has flaws.
To me, the most blatent flaw is the know fact that the shroud has/had a bacterial infestation in its long history. Enough so that any dating method used would and should clean the cloth before attempting to date it, but it was not cleaned, and might not be possible to clean before dating. This new look wants to take samples from multiple places on the shroud, which makes much more sense knowing that there is contamination that will skew any and all results to a newer creation date (as the bacterial mass would was living on the shroud after its actual creation and thus have giving a possitive time shift to the data collected which still includes this added mass to the testing mass, the shroud fibers themselves, not the shroud and bacteria that is on the shroud.
There was a similar issue with the dead sea scrolls. But with those, a solution was found to get more accurate readings by measuring the age a one of the scrolls which had were dated and cross-referenced with other known sources to be known accurate to the particular dates/time frame, and compairing that result with the result found on the other scrolls. In those cases, there was a 200-300 year difference resolved. By compairing the resulting carbon date output range in those cases, it was found that the lowest possible number in the carbon dating was the true date. It was still within the margin of error of data in that particular case(s), but it was the extreme low end which was a 200-300 year shift from the nominal value of the range.
In the shroud's case, there is no other documentation found with the shroud, no other similar objects which have dates associated with them, at least not until the 16th century when it passed into the hands of the church. And thus no way to use the same methods used to date the dead sea scrolls in this case. What is known, is that there is contamination. How much is up for debate simply because more tests have not been performed, and because science does not want to expose the known flaws with carbon dating. I say known as they are known to scientists and intelligent people, but not known to the general public who have been lead to believe that it is the be-all-end-all method and that the results never lie, but when in reality, the results can easily be skewed to the possitive timeframe by contamination (this is why other objects that are dated try to use material that is not exposed to the direct elements, but this is not possible in this case).
All I am saying is that there are many known reasons for the dating to be skewed. Is it possible that the dating was skewed 1100 years or so, I do not know. It could be if the bacterial infestation was extrememly pervasive in the area from where the sample was taken.
Personnally, I believe that it may be a fake, but the fact that we have yet to prove it one way or the other keeps my mind open. The real question should be if it is a fake, how was it made? We still have yet to answer that. There is speculation that it was painted by an artist, but if that was the case, the paint should have been absorbed by the fibers and penetrated them, when the coloring is only on the extreme edges of the fibers. Another suggestion was that it was "burned" on by a massive bronze/iron statue being heated and the cloth being draped over the statue. This too has been disprooven as the photographic negative effect would not have been created with this method (emperical tests were done to test this and the resulting works did not withstand the photographic negative test). When after almost 700 years no one has been able to show how it was made, especially with all the advances in science and technology only showing how much more there is to the shroud, I keep a open mind that it could be authentic, but a skeptical mind given the nature of the time in which it came into existance...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Actually it's the other way round. The image is definitely warped, but such that it's more anatomically correct if draped. Some icons (paintings on curved wax and wood, such as this icon ) show a marked resemeblance to the shroud image, because the underlying wood is curved in the same way (the medieval idea of "3D", only you don't need red & blue glasses).
There are several books on the Shroud that purport that the overwhelming majority of religious art shows a high degree of influence from the shroud image. The paintings have a lot of anatomical weirdness due to the fact that they were copying basically a photographic negative (whether you think it's a fake or not, the image is definitely a photo-negative) without realizing the concept. In the image above, see the wide-apart large staring eyes, misshappen right cheek, and basically the hair. The hair in that painting is the artist's impression of what was more likely the cloth bound around the shroud man's head to hold his chin closed.
Here's an image from someone who's trying to prove that theory : shroud vs icon (if you disregard the coins for the moment, it does seem to show that medieval artists around Europe and Asia basically tried to copy the shroud as closely as possible even where it didn't look human.) (sorry about the partisan source for that image, first link on google).
That doesn't show it's fake, nor that it's real, but that at least the artists felt it was authentic, and many of them dated from before the carbon dating from the British museum; so it's another piece of evidence that the Brits really screwed that one up, ensuring controversy for another dozen years.
Considering that Christianity tends to include a support network and a structured framework, I'd be a little leary of questioning if Christians committed less crime than non-Christians.
Many Christians don't even drink, or consider drinking to drunkeness a sin, another factor in criminal behavior.
There are only two factors that I could see pushing the Christian crime rate up: Prison ministries, and hate speech and other crimes against gays and abortion-right activists. Other than a few nutcases, Christians tend to be strongly outspoken against homosexuality and abortions, but not to the point of committing crimes. The prison ministries may be a huge factor though.
The other problem is how to define Christian? There are many self-described "Christians" out there that I don't consider Christian due to their lapse of practicing Christianity. They are as much Christian as they are Germans or Swedes or English: It may have been the belief/country of their ancestors, but they no longer practice the customers. Its like "Wiccans" who convert to their faith after watching "The Craft", yet have very little grasp of the Wiccan theology.
Unfortunately, googling is turning up no useful statistics, such as the percentage of criminals at the time of their crime who regularly participated in religious acts (praying, church participation, etc) vs the population on average. :(
If you don't understand religion, don't write it off as some strange cult. Without considering the supernatural, religion has some rather big benefits, which may be one of the reasons why atheistic cultures are relatively rare in history. Religion can help bind a culture together, and provide rules in order to increase the chances of survival. Look at the Islamic rules on bodily hygiene: Most of them make a lot of sense. Its similar to the US dietary guidelines: While parts of it are probably mistaken, following them should improve your chances of survival. The difference is that the US dietary guidelines are based on science, while strict religious laws are based upon which tribes and religions or subsects of religion survived.
Even today, in the age of science, those who regularily participate in religious customs (solitarily or in groups) tend to be healthier than those who don't. Stress is unhealthy: forgiving others and believing that God is in charge reduces a lot of stress. I had a religious family member be diagnosed with cancer several years ago. In addition to the support network her church gave her, she had a lot less stress because she believed that whatever happened was God's will. She had biopsies and went to radiation therapy and drug therapy[1], and has been cancer free for several years. While we can credit modern science with killing the cancer, her lower levels of stress probably played a factor in recovery.
[1] Yes, God helps those who helps themselves. Religion has already answered the question of "If I have faith in God, why should I do anything at all?" centuries ago. You aren't being witty by bringing it up: You are showing your ignorance of Christian theology.
actually that second image isn't a good example of my point, sorry! The website showed the *positive* (reversed) image against the icon. You'd see much more resemblance in the original (negative) and the icon.
Here's a website that describes the basic theory. I think they have a good point, but since they're true believers, they take it way too far and dilute the original point by trying to show how even modern day art is shroud influenced. Modern day art is much more influenced by the renaissance, which probably has no shroud influence at all (I mean seriously guys, if anybody faked it, it certainly wasn't Da Vinci or Raphael, they had WAY better things to do.)
I've actually watched several shows on the Shroud both on the History channel and the Discovery and Science channels, and all three sources (two of which are run by the same parent company) both claim that carbon dating is going to be inaccurate no matter what because of layers of caked on pollen and other microscopic life from over the centuries. All other evidence aside, I'd like to see an accurate dating of the Shroud (I'm a science buff and ardent Catholic-converted-to-Pagan) just to see the Pope choke as he tries to explain this "mystery".
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
The shroud isn't authentic. It's physically impossible for a 3d object to have made the entire image. The face, back and front all have slightly different dimensions, meaning they were created at three seperate times. I don't necessarily believe it, but an intersting theory that explains this is that the shroud is actually a primitive photograph. Camera obscuras and light sensitive chemicals were known at the time of the shrouds creation in medieval times. It is conceivable, however unlikely, that someone could have put all the pieces together to create the shroud through photographic techniques.
This theoretical photographer could then have used his camera obscura to creat the front and back seperately. A thrid image would be needed for the face since lenses at the time did not have the focal range needed to show enough detail at the range needed to show the entire body. The photographer couldn't simply leave the face blurry, because that's where everyone looks.
To modern ears, this whole notion of purity seems offensive, but in the case of the Hebrews it was really a matter of cultural survival as a subjugated race. If they were to continue as a viable nation-in-captivity and/or religion, they had to find ways to be distinctively different and cut down on intermarriage and mingling with the gentiles. It is more like the sort of cultural distinctiveness taken on by all sorts of oppressed groups (think Africa Americans or contemporary homosexuals) than racism or classism.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I'm surprised there are so many religious people here on Slashdot...
...
How sad that we sit here in front of our computers -- and at least in my case: dozens of other miracles of modern technology. We have access at our fingertips to photographs from other moons and planets, great works of science and mathematics, etc. -- and we're still apparently obsessed with these poorly written, contradictory, illogical, primitive belief-systems.
And before you mod this as "flame-bait", I'll say this: discussing religion as if it *isn't* 'primitive' is an affront to *my* belief system -- a system which is open and accepting of all that is provable, and questions baseless tenets that are spread by fear, force and ignorance. So this isn't intended as flamebait -- Why must I sit back and be polite when my beliefs are being insulted? Its not that I just don't agree with you -- its that your beliefs are an affront to mine. So this discussion of religion (from any and all perspectives other than history and social relevance) is flamebait to me.
That's all.. carry on... resume "discussion"
Of course, it is quite possible that in Massachusetts many more people have sexual relationships without being married, so in the end it may turn out that are actually more people staying with their initial partner in Texas then there are in Massachusetts. Here in the Netherlands there has been a time when it was not done to get married. You simply lived together. The law even came up with special rules for people who did not want to marry out of rebellion against the concept to marriage being a life long bond. Nowadays many people live together several years before they get married. So divorce rates being lower does not say a damn thing about the number of people that break up after having sexual relationship with someone else.