Michael Larkin
Member
A very interesting recent video on the Shroud:
C14 dating is useful to about 60 thousands year do to its halflife limits. It can't be used on objects older than that and certainly not on objects millions of year old.Well, the issue of circular reasoning is not that much true.What you do is actually date things using radiometric dating, that is, with various methods that include all sort of radioactive particles, from Uranium to Rubidium. If you grab a fossil of a dinosaur, you can run at least half a dozen different radiometric datings into the fossils layer, all agreeing that it's millions of years old. Now, if you did tried carbon dating to the bone itself, you would still get a result, although a very weird one. The reason for this will pretty much depends on what you are trying to use to carbon date it. The most advanced way is a machine named AMS.
Now, you must take into account that, given the way radiocarbon dating is done, it's an extremely, and I mean, extremely delicate process, and the older the sample, the more weird data you get when contamination is done. For example, a 17.000 yrs old sample with a 1% contamination of modern carbon will give results 600 years younger. A 34.000 yrs old sample with a 1% contamination with modern carbon will give results 4000 years younger. So, as you can see, the older the sample, the less contamination you need to give you weird results. Carbon dating was designed, more or less, to resist a few contamination here and there, given it was made for "recent" objects.
Of course, don't even get me started as to how few contamination a 60.000.000 yrs old sample would require to give you false results which is way beyond the scope originally conceived for carbon dating, and given that AMS, which is the best reliable method, pretty much requires a lot of preparation of the sample, contamination eventually will creep in.
This gets a bit worse when one thinks what is a fossil. A fossil is a mineralized organic thing. Mineralization involves the replacement of old organic tissue with newer minerals, like, for example, carbon 14. I'm not sure how much of this may contamine your sample, even before you find it.
So, if you carbon date a dinosaur bone, what you are actually carbon-dating is how much dust and whatnot the bone acquired while being at the museum. Also, you must take into account that carbon dating a dinosaur bone would be at odds with the other evidence the "soft tissue" gave, such as that experiment that show that T. rex collagen is more close to birds collagen than to any other specie alive ( or well, from a very big sample of species alive actually) which support the evolutionary model of birds "coming from" dinosaurs, which pretty much proves ( for the gazillion time ) that the model is right in it's general terms, after all, it's a prediction the theory makes.
Hope that helps.
C14 dating is useful to about 60 thousands year do to its halflife limits. It can't be used on objects older than that and certainly not on objects millions of year old.
A very interesting recent video on the Shroud:
A very interesting recent video on the Shroud:
CorrectAgreed. You can't carbon date an object million of years old.
Well, technically you can put the object inside a AMS, but I think the best explanation for the "dates" is contamination.
A very interesting recent video on the Shroud:
By the way, Dan Porter, who appeared several times in this video, runs one of the best blogs on the Shroud:
http://shroudstory.com/
The blog post comment sections are where most of the action is. Lots of very knowledgeable readers debate all kinds of issues in depth. Reading their comments can be an educational experience.
Doug
Porter's site is no longer a place I visit because it has turned into a madhouse where they would allow pseudoskeptics to post with barely a slap on the wrist and some of them bring up theories time and time again that have been debunked many years ago.
I like Stephen Jones's shroud blog as he tends to keep things focused on the evidences at hand without the blog getting congested with pseudoskeptics who aren't really interested in finding the truth about the shroud
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/
Sorry folks but im dealing with avery bad situation with my Dad being in ICU from multiple strokes and stage 4 prostate cancer so please excuse me if I didn't see some of your replies here and there.
If you're referring to the kerfuffle over Colin Berry's rude posts, Dan Porter resolved the issue in March, 2012:
http://shroudstory.com/2012/03/12/regrettably/
That aside, there are many aspects to Shroud research. Within some of those aspects there exist points of disagreement even among educated proponents of its authenticity. I enjoy reading the give and take on those points and simply skip over obviously uninformed or incoherent posts.
Indeed, Jones has written some fine, well-researched articles. But I must admit that I feel some concern over his Christian fundamentalist evangelical outlook. Rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid it may cause him to lose a bit of objectivity. (For those unfamiliar with Jones, see another one of his blogs, Jesus is Jehovah).
You have my deepest sympathies... Coincidentally, my stepfather is probably dying of lung cancer. A second test to find the cancer has been scheduled for tomorrow. Even if the test turns up positive, I fear my stepfather will starve to death before the cancer gets him. He's had almost no appetite for the past couple of weeks and has been losing weight at an alarming rate.
Doug
The 2002 restoration was a regrettable thing to happen to the shroud. Rogers was angry and frustrated that it might skew future testing results because of the way it was done.Thanks for the video, Doug. I suppose the main thing that puzzled me was that there was no mention of where the linen sample used for radiocarbon dating was taken from: the video I posted claimed it was from a suspect area. So even if the hypothesis about CO contamination doesn't pan out, there may be other reasons for possible discrepancies. And, because of the flawed conservation exercise carried out in 2002, it may have become more difficult to do future testing.
Whatever the truth of the matter, it's an incontrovertible fact that no one knows how to produce a similarly detailed image today on linen; it's all the more extraordinary that it should have been produced in the 13th, 5th or 1st centuries.
Thank you so much for your deepest well wishes my friend. My prayers are with you and your step dad, and if you ever need a friend to talk to, you have one now.
Have you looked at the different alternative treatments yet. I don't know where you and your step dad are at but there is one clinic in Los Angeles called the Bicher cancer clinic that uses a method called hyperthermia in which they heat the body or parts of it to 108 degrees and zaps it with a very low dose of radiation ( I was told the same amount that you would get from taking an xray) and I heard that there are very little if any side effects. The treatment is covered by PPO insurance.
I was getting ready to take my dad there for 6 months right after his operation but then 2 days after his operation he started to suffer a series of strokes and now it doesn't look good for him at all as he is in ICU. My dad was the best friend I ever had. We did everything together. He is my father, brother and best friend all rolled into one person. He is my angel. He was a simple mountain man from a village of 300 people.
Today when I first saw him in ICU I Kissed every toe on his legs :(
Doug like I said If you ever need someone to talk to, just pm me anytime u need to.
Take care of urself my friend
Sorry folks but im dealing with avery bad situation with my Dad being in ICU from multiple strokes and stage 4 prostate cancer so please excuse me if I didn't see some of your replies here and there.
Best wishes for all concerned. :)Coincidentally, my stepfather is probably dying of lung cancer.
Oh Doug, I wanted to mention this but forgot to do so before. I know I mentioned that im Catholic, but I also forgot to mention that im an inclusivist, which means that although we believe that the only way to the father is through the son we also believe that a person can be saved through just genuine effort to find God, even non Christians. From my reading, the early Christian writers from Justin Martyr onward, many if not most of them were inclusivists as well, and I personally feel that incluisivism speaks best to God's understanding and empathy . I know many from the evangelical side don't agree with this but like I said many of the early Christians were inclusivists, and I do believe that the official Catholic position post Vatican 2 was more strongly clarified as inclusivism.If you're referring to the kerfuffle over Colin Berry's rude posts, Dan Porter resolved the issue in March, 2012:
http://shroudstory.com/2012/03/12/regrettably/
That aside, there are many aspects to Shroud research. Within some of those aspects there exist points of disagreement even among educated proponents of its authenticity. I enjoy reading the give and take on those points and simply skip over obviously uninformed or incoherent posts.
Indeed, Jones has written some fine, well-researched articles. But I must admit that I feel some concern over his Christian fundamentalist evangelical outlook. Rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid it may cause him to lose a bit of objectivity. (For those unfamiliar with Jones, see another one of his blogs, Jesus is Jehovah).
You have my deepest sympathies... Coincidentally, my stepfather is probably dying of lung cancer. A second test to find the cancer has been scheduled for tomorrow. Even if the test turns up positive, I fear my stepfather will starve to death before the cancer gets him. He's had almost no appetite for the past couple of weeks and has been losing weight at an alarming rate.
Doug
But as I said the problem gets even worse. Lets say that the camera obscura method was available in the 13th century? If so you then have to scale that date back to the 12th century because in the Hungarian pray manuscript dated to 1190 ad we have an illustration of what can only be the shroud of turin complete with the 3way herringbone weave and the unique 4 poker holes found only in the shroud.
Remember also that Agnostic Chemist Ray Rogers in his excellent peer reviewed chemical analysis published in the secular chemical journal Thermochimica acta(which someone already posted the link to in here) did a vanillin test and the dated the shroud off of this test to be between 1300 and 3000 years old. the reason for the wide dates is that Rogers had to account for the different conditions in which the shroud could have been stored in.
I also doubt a camera obscura could account for the xray information encoded into the regions of the hands,wrist, left femur, Jaw, gums and teeth of the man of the shroud. I doubt someone has an xray machine in the 6th century or first century.
You also have to account for a medieval forger understanding what rigor mortis was more then 700 years ago because the image on the shroud itself is of a person in rigor mortis. Rigor mortis doesn't last more then 48 hours. How long do the biblical accounts say Christ was in that tomb? No more then 2 days or a bit more or less. Friday evening to sunday morning ;)
.Except the Hungarian Pray codex does NOT have a '3way herringbone', unless you want to pretend the interlocking pyramids represents the weave. The codex image also has crosses on the other side, something lacking on the shroud itself. You also have the problem that there is no image of Jesus on the codex shroud, nor is one mentioned in the text. The 4 circles are in a L shape, but the orientation is wrong, considering the other problems, the similarity appears to be a coincidence
.Having read the paper, it is not so excellent. Dr. Rogers paper did not prove the c14 test wrong, it just came up with a different date, an important distinction. This tells us that one of the papers is wrong, not which one. Having read both, it is more likely Roger's paper
The c14 test followed scientific protocols, such as a clear chain from sample taking to testing. Rogers did not, he even admits his samples were in essence stolen, even though it is hard to see how they could have been from a reading of the c14 paper itself.
There are other problems, such as Rogers claiming the shroud 'could not have become very hot' during a fire in 1532. Not only could he not know that for sure, but his experiment is dependent on knowing the precise temperature for the Arrhenius equation he uses. His work is dependent on a previous paper by Stanley T. Kosiewicz (who he does not list in the references) that is based on a constant temperature. According to a report in 1503, the shroud has been boiled in oil, and 'laundered many times', hardly constant, and this fact is absent from Rogers paper. These boilings would have destroyed vanillin, artificially aging his results.
Xray information? Perhaps you or your source are seeing something you want to see. Even so, you don't need a machine to see how a skeleton looks.