I'm sorry that you feel that way. And I certainly respect your right to believe as you wish.
It was probably foolish to carbon 14 date the Shroud of Turin in the first place, back in 1988. But it was done. And many skeptics cheered; understandably. Science, some said, had scored a victory.
But those tests were flawed. We know that now. That is not about religion. That is about science.
I love science. I believe in science and I marvel at our 13 billion old universe, evolution and geology and so many things that science can teach us. I just happen to be a Christian which is a matter of faith, not science.
I'm fascinated by the Shroud because it is something important to millions of Christians and because it sheds light on the historical Jesus (if it is real) and it may help explain why Christianity flourished in our world.
This is about science. It is only about religion if you make it about that. Notice I said Jesus and not Christ. That is something science cannot address.
You should not be offended. You should speak out about what you believe but don't be offended by good science.
Before jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses.
Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
Excellent post. It should be added that McCrone had nothing to do with carbon 14 testing. The issue regarding McCrone was his conclusion that it was painted after having found traces of paint components. McCrone has been debunked on two fronts. First of all, numerous tests show that there are insufficient quantities of "paint" to form an image. Secondly, the image is part of a carbohydrate layer (180 -600 nm thick) and has the sprectral qualities of a caramelization or an amino/carbonyl reaction.
Dan
The image is of a man with his knees bent. Lay on a long sheet. Drape it over you so it follows the contours of the body. Mark the end of your foot and the top of your head on the bottom section of the sheet and on the top layer. Flatten it out. The distance from head to toe on what was the top layer will be longer because it was draped.
History is filled with gaps in the records. But there are records from 1207, 1203 and 944. See Historical Record.
You have absolutely no knowledge of Rogers. Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. Read the January 28 article in Nature!!!
Rogers set out to prove the patch hypothesis was wrong and discovered it was right.
Do you have an example, a single citation? Or are you making this up? It is hank bleached linen. In medieval Europe, all linen was field bleached. May I suggest you read Pliny the Elder.
No, in two levels of heresay, a bishop made such a claim.
There are not extant records in Western Europe: big difference.
As for the weave, read Pliny the Elder
Draping & strips. Get out any Greek dictionary and the source text.
2D - that is still a puzzle. But it is more of a puzzle if it is art.
Holy light? Who told you that?
Height of the man. Do you understand plain geometry?
Three labs tested a bad sample. This is what this whole thread is about!!!
The only problem with this argument is that I don't think anyone, on either side of the authenticity debate, thinks that the image was imprinted in the sense you mean. The distortions problem is obvious.
The images seem almost collimated except that there are apparent distortions of elongation in the face and the hands. To some extent this is caused by background hues. These hues are caused by the fact that the linen was hank bleached as opposed to field bleached. But this hue does not explain all of the distortions. There is evidence that some of the image was formed over distance, perhaps as much as 4 cm in places.
Read: Why No One Can Fully Explain the Images on the Shroud.
Rogers does not propose chemical changes. Rogers is saying that the sample is not representative of the cloth as a whole because the cloth was mended. The chemical differences are extraordinary. Read the article.
I don't know what you mean by true believer. If you mean I believe in science, I do. Incidentally, I consider much of the purported pro-authenticity science about the shroud as junk science.
If we have what seems to be a bad sample, and all the evidence points in that direction, then we cannot continue to accept the carbon 14 dating from 1988 valid no matter how much we may want to believe it. I never accepted any of the previous explanations (bioplastic, contamination, isotope changes from heat, etc.)for erroneous carbon 14 dating because they were pure junk.
The vanillin issue is pretty clear.
Incidentally, John Brown at Georgia Tech has just completed a confirmation of Rogers' work.
Since we don't know how the image was formed it is moot to discuss issues of proportion. Some who support the idea of an amino/carbonyl reaction believe that just these distortions are to be expected.
Turin is in Italy. Who were these French priests. Are you possibly thinking of the d'Arcis memorandum in which a French Bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, reported that a painter had confessed to painting the Shroud to Henri de Poitiers, his predessor. The city you are thinking is Lirey.
And BTW, it probably should be called the Shroud of Christ and some people call it that. Others call it the Holy Shroud.
I love it when people make up facts.
Leonardo was born 100 years after the first appearance of the Shroud in Lirey, France in 1356. It takes quite a conspiracy theory to have him doing this thing.
Funny, too, National Geographic leaked the Rogers debunking of the carbon 14 dating last April and is reporting the story on their website. There are other stories including a commentary from Nature. Check out the links at http://www.shroudstory.com/breaking02.htm
Actually, the fundamentalists are not all that happy about the Shroud. It isn't close enough to biblical passages.
What Rogers said dealt with the carbon 14 dating. There is much more to understanding the Shroud.
Slashdot Mirror
It was probably foolish to carbon 14 date the Shroud of Turin in the first place, back in 1988. But it was done. And many skeptics cheered; understandably. Science, some said, had scored a victory.
But those tests were flawed. We know that now. That is not about religion. That is about science.
I love science. I believe in science and I marvel at our 13 billion old universe, evolution and geology and so many things that science can teach us. I just happen to be a Christian which is a matter of faith, not science.
I'm fascinated by the Shroud because it is something important to millions of Christians and because it sheds light on the historical Jesus (if it is real) and it may help explain why Christianity flourished in our world.
This is about science. It is only about religion if you make it about that. Notice I said Jesus and not Christ. That is something science cannot address.
You should not be offended. You should speak out about what you believe but don't be offended by good science.
Dan
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Body decomposition rates
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Unconfirmed bioplastic polymer coating
Why a bioplastic did not affect carbon 14 tests
DanExcellent post. It should be added that McCrone had nothing to do with carbon 14 testing. The issue regarding McCrone was his conclusion that it was painted after having found traces of paint components. McCrone has been debunked on two fronts. First of all, numerous tests show that there are insufficient quantities of "paint" to form an image. Secondly, the image is part of a carbohydrate layer (180 -600 nm thick) and has the sprectral qualities of a caramelization or an amino/carbonyl reaction. Dan
No question about it: the teachings of Christ. The Shroud is useful in the ever ongoing quest for the historical Jesus.
The image is of a man with his knees bent. Lay on a long sheet. Drape it over you so it follows the contours of the body. Mark the end of your foot and the top of your head on the bottom section of the sheet and on the top layer. Flatten it out. The distance from head to toe on what was the top layer will be longer because it was draped. History is filled with gaps in the records. But there are records from 1207, 1203 and 944. See Historical Record.
Do you simply dream up this stuff? http://www.shroudstory.com for better information.
You have absolutely no knowledge of Rogers. Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. Read the January 28 article in Nature!!! Rogers set out to prove the patch hypothesis was wrong and discovered it was right.
Do you have an example, a single citation? Or are you making this up? It is hank bleached linen. In medieval Europe, all linen was field bleached. May I suggest you read Pliny the Elder.
No, in two levels of heresay, a bishop made such a claim. There are not extant records in Western Europe: big difference. As for the weave, read Pliny the Elder Draping & strips. Get out any Greek dictionary and the source text. 2D - that is still a puzzle. But it is more of a puzzle if it is art. Holy light? Who told you that? Height of the man. Do you understand plain geometry? Three labs tested a bad sample. This is what this whole thread is about!!!
The only problem with this argument is that I don't think anyone, on either side of the authenticity debate, thinks that the image was imprinted in the sense you mean. The distortions problem is obvious. The images seem almost collimated except that there are apparent distortions of elongation in the face and the hands. To some extent this is caused by background hues. These hues are caused by the fact that the linen was hank bleached as opposed to field bleached. But this hue does not explain all of the distortions. There is evidence that some of the image was formed over distance, perhaps as much as 4 cm in places. Read: Why No One Can Fully Explain the Images on the Shroud.
Rogers does not propose chemical changes. Rogers is saying that the sample is not representative of the cloth as a whole because the cloth was mended. The chemical differences are extraordinary. Read the article. I don't know what you mean by true believer. If you mean I believe in science, I do. Incidentally, I consider much of the purported pro-authenticity science about the shroud as junk science. If we have what seems to be a bad sample, and all the evidence points in that direction, then we cannot continue to accept the carbon 14 dating from 1988 valid no matter how much we may want to believe it. I never accepted any of the previous explanations (bioplastic, contamination, isotope changes from heat, etc.)for erroneous carbon 14 dating because they were pure junk. The vanillin issue is pretty clear. Incidentally, John Brown at Georgia Tech has just completed a confirmation of Rogers' work.
Since we don't know how the image was formed it is moot to discuss issues of proportion. Some who support the idea of an amino/carbonyl reaction believe that just these distortions are to be expected.
Turin is in Italy. Who were these French priests. Are you possibly thinking of the d'Arcis memorandum in which a French Bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, reported that a painter had confessed to painting the Shroud to Henri de Poitiers, his predessor. The city you are thinking is Lirey. And BTW, it probably should be called the Shroud of Christ and some people call it that. Others call it the Holy Shroud. I love it when people make up facts.
Nature, of course, was the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal that carried the story of the 1988 carbon 14 dating.
This article addresses most of the comments that have been posted in this thread.
Dan
Funny, too, National Geographic leaked the Rogers debunking of the carbon 14 dating last April and is reporting the story on their website. There are other stories including a commentary from Nature. Check out the links at http://www.shroudstory.com/breaking02.htm
This is a useful quick read: The Skeptical Spectacle, No Bull Facts About the Shroud of Turin.
This article was published in 1998. It is out of date and filled with inaccuracy.
Actually, the fundamentalists are not all that happy about the Shroud. It isn't close enough to biblical passages. What Rogers said dealt with the carbon 14 dating. There is much more to understanding the Shroud.
Actually, McCrone found the starch fractions that ultimately proved him wrong. Check out Ray Rogers FAQ
For some more accurate perspective on the carbon 14 dating fiasco check out Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud.