Sapper Redux said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

It's funny how these studies are always printed by the same people and in predatory journals that charge a fee to publish. The sample was selected by the Church. I'm sure researchers would be happy to repeat the experiment on another part of the Shroud. Still, the original sample was well analyzed and was not a repair, nor any more damaged than other parts of the Shroud.

---

Since when is Entropy considered a "predatory journal"?

---

It's an open access journal where all fees are paid by the authors and it speed-runs peer review. The publisher is a well-known purveyor of this kind of predatory academic publishing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

---

Google AI disagrees with you:

Quote:

---

Entropy is generally considered a legitimate, albeit polarizing, peer-reviewed journal published by MDPI, not a typical "predatory" journal. It is indexed in major databases like Scopus and Web of Science (SCIE) and has a reasonable impact factor. However, it is often criticized for fast publication times and high volumes of special issues, leading to debates regarding its peer-review quality.

---

It is also valid enough to be republished by PubMed which means that it was extensively peer reviewed. So your attempts make ad hominem attacks on the journal seem ill-founded.

---

I love how your quote acknowledges the evidence supporting my position and admits its validity as a concern and you turn around and say, "See! It's a baseless ad hominem attack!"

---

Well, you did say that it is "predatory" and that it "speed runs peer review". What evidence do you have to support that? The evidence I presented is that it is not labeled as "predatory" and that even if peer review is "speed run" at the journal level (unknown), it is required to get re-published in PubMed.

"Ad hominem" attacks are essentially attacks on the provider of information, rather than the information itself. That's exactly what you did. You couldn't address the paper itself, so you attacked the publisher.

Rocag said:

---

Your "smoking gun" is actually a great example of the scale of the issue we're talking about when we discuss how accurate carbon dating is. For an event that took place over 2600 years ago a carbon dating test was about 200 years off and that is one of the best examples you can present to show that the testing method is inaccurate. Think of that again. A difference of 200 years is considered a major error. And I think the example of Nineveh is absolutely an interesting one and a great example of the work still to be done as testing methods are improved.

Now compare that to the shroud where the age difference would be 1300 years. That's an order of magnitude larger than your "smoking gun" example of the possible errors in the results of carbon dating. So even if I accept something in that range of accuracy for the shroud we're still left with an age range of something like 700 years old plus or minus a few centuries. OK. I'm fine with that degree of uncertainty.

---

Wait a second, you've bounced around all over. You were trying to argue that the integrity of the sample was fairly irrelevant since C14 dating is so reliable.

You may not realize it, but your statements sound like blind faith and show how little you know of C14 dating. Again, sample selection and understanding of sample environment are critical to C14 dating.

My example about Nineveh wasn't to show that the C14 dating of the Shroud is in error, but rather to show that your blind faith is C14 dating is unwarranted. Your blind adherence to something you've read about a C14 date is the equivalent to a Christian buttressing their argument with the words "The Bible said it." Both are blind faith.

The thing that bothers me about so-called skeptics is that they are skeptical of only one thing: Christianity. The turn off their skepticism when they hear or read anything that claims "science said".

I think you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. In regards to the shroud itself, the main point is that I do not believe those who support its authenticity have been able to show that the sources of contamination it was likely to have been exposed to could have caused the date to be off by 1300 years and that arguments suggesting it was due to fire or water damage implies that the tested section was indeed a part of the original shroud.

Carbon dating is, at the end of the day, just a tool. It is only useful in certain circumstances and has its own inherent weaknesses and sources of error. Used incorrectly, it can absolutely produce misleading results. But there is a right way to use it and if done so it has been shown to produce reliable results within its inherent margin of error. If the tested date for the shroud is that incorrect then the problem isn't the testing method itself but that those performing the testing failed to account for potential sources of contamination. And I promise you won't find me suggesting people don't make mistakes.

My conclusion remains the same: despite the objections raised I still find the carbon dating of the shroud to be the most compelling piece of evidence available when it comes to the dating of the shroud. The predicted age lines up very well with its first documented appearance in the mid 1300's which lends credence to the idea the tested date is roughly accurate.

Rocag said:

---

I think you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. In regards to the shroud itself, the main point is that I do not believe those who support its authenticity have been able to show that the sources of contamination it was likely to have been exposed to could have caused the date to be off by 1300 years and that arguments suggesting it was due to fire or water damage implies that the tested section was indeed a part of the original shroud.

Carbon dating is, at the end of the day, just a tool. It is only useful in certain circumstances and has its own inherent weaknesses and sources of error. Used incorrectly, it can absolutely produce misleading results. But there is a right way to use it and if done so it has been shown to produce reliable results within its inherent margin of error. If the tested date for the shroud is that incorrect then the problem isn't the testing method itself but that those performing the testing failed to account for potential sources of contamination. And I promise you won't find me suggesting people don't make mistakes.

My conclusion remains the same: despite the objections raised I still find the carbon dating of the shroud to be the most compelling piece of evidence available when it comes to the dating of the shroud. The predicted age lines up very well with its first documented appearance in the mid 1300's which lends credence to the idea the tested date is roughly accurate.

---

I can't disagree with any of that. One small caveat is that the supporters of the Shroud's authenticity are throwing mud at the wall and hoping that something sticks. Sometimes that is an effective method. But the various forms of mud don't necessarily have to be consistent with each other. For example: 1. The part that was tested was a repair sewn it. 2. Even if it wasn't a repair sewn in, the C14 gave an incorrect date for reasons A, B, & C.

Right now, the preponderance of the admissible evidence, as far as I know, is that the Shroud is not the Shroud of Christ.

However, I disagree with Sapper that the Church's refusal to allow further testing is due to the fact that they don't want it to be disproven as Christ's burial shroud. That might be their reason, but an equally plausible reason is that they are essentially bureaucrats and prefer not making any decision. Also, it may be hard to believe, but there is a very strong "liberal" theological element within the RCC who don't really believe in Christ as the Son of God, concentrated especially in Rome. Those of that persuasion may also not want the Shroud to be verified. The Vatican has shown itself throughout history to be very susceptible to the whims of European political leaders, who also might not want it tested for any number of reasons. In short, the majority of factions within the Vatican are perfectly content with the status quo.

The Vatican is way too complex for short, simple analyses.

Are you leaning towards artistic forgery?

Quote:

---

However, I disagree with Sapper that the Church's refusal to allow further testing is due to the fact that they don't want it to be disproven as Christ's burial shroud. That might be their reason, but an equally plausible reason is that they are essentially bureaucrats and prefer not making any decision. Also, it may be hard to believe, but there is a very strong "liberal" theological element within the RCC who don't really believe in Christ as the Son of God, concentrated especially in Rome. Those of that persuasion may also not want the Shroud to be verified.

---

I didn't say that. I think that's a consideration for some, especially those who profit from the mystery around the Shroud, but some of it almost certainly comes from concerns about further damage to the relic. And I get that. My understanding is that the Church itself doesn't publicly lean one way or the other and probably doesn't care much about testing per se, but also doesn't want to set too many precedents about testing relics or miraculous sites for any number of reasons beyond simple concern about embarrassment. Your conspiracy theory is… well it's out there.

Enviroag02 said:

---

Are you leaning towards artistic forgery?

---

Nah, I'm not leaning towards anything. It's an intriguing item and I enjoy watching the debate and the various tidbits of information slowly come in.

You don't have an inclination on it at all other than it's not the burial shroud of Jesus? What is it then?

Enviroag02 said:

---

You don't have an inclination on it at all other than it's not the burial shroud of Jesus? What is it then?

---

Don't know. I told you I had no inclination as to what it is at all. Why is that hard to believe. Shouldn't people reserve judgment until all or most of the facts are in?

It may be a medieval forgery. Just because we can't explain how it was done doesn't make it the burial shroud of Christ. There's lots of old stuff that we can't explain but know are true, such as how the Egyptian pyramids were built. For almost 2000 years, we didn't know how the Romans made concrete that could set under water. We lost the knowledge on how to build chimneys for 1000 years after Rome fell. Those are just examples off the top of my head and there are probably many more.