I’ve said this before, but the Shroudie claims that “The ‘Shroud’ is the most thoroughly evaluated of all human artifacts” and “The ‘Shroud’ has never been properly carbon-dated” are mutually exclusive. They can’t both be true.
2 Likes
Why???
We could get into dictionary wars but in the spirit of your conditions, let me suggest instead the great pyramids of Egypt or Tutankhamun. Compare the amount of scientific literature from those studies and the number of researchers in the fields. Shroudology is a bit player, comparatively.
3 Likes
1 Like
Carbon dating is one of the, if not the single, most basic tests one can do to determine the authenticity of such an artifact. If that hasn’t been done, it is ludicrous to suggest it is the most thoroughly evaluated of all human artifacts. Unless by “evaluated” we mean “Stood there and stared at pictures of it with one’s thumb up one’s ass and said ‘Golly gee.’” And even then…
Another contradictory claim: “No one knows how the image was produced!” Well, then, I guess it just hasn’t been evaluated closely enough by anyone with the expertise to answer that question, has it?
1 Like
It’s The Most Thoroughly Discussed Human Artifact on Peaceful Science! 
3 Likes
Carbon dating was done by a trio of labs. The results were fairly consistent and returned apparent ages of less than 1000 years. Hypotheses for why the radiocarbon dating would point to a period at least a thousand years after Jesus’ death have been proposed but not tested and not considered likely in any case. The Vatican could allow more sampling and detection sensitivities have gotten better, making the assessment even more reliable, but they have declined. So proponents have tried less definitive techniques which have returned an even more ambiguous window of possible ages.
Personally, I don’t care whether the shroud is 2000 years old or <1000. I’ve got no theological or philosophical concerns there. For me, the psychology and the presumptions driving the participants’ thoughts are what’s interesting.
3 Likes
In case there is any confusion, I understand that C-14 testing was done, and AFAIK there is no reasonable cause to doubt those results. However, those in the authenticist camp refuse to accept those results. This means, in their minds, the “shroud” has never been reliably dated by any radiometric means. That contradicts their concurrent claim that no human artifact in all history has been as thoroughly analyzed and investigated as this piece of cloth, since (according to them) it has not been properly subjected to one of the most basic tests.
1 Like
I’ll take ‘artifact’ and ‘human history’ literally and suggest the Piltdown hoax as a comparison.
I have no idea if it is true or not as I have not separately researched the claim. The list of papers I cited it shows a large quantity of research that continues today. Your question initiated the search. Thanks.
Will do.
You know, some other person who is not here made a claim. It has no discernable relevancy to the discussion had here, and I personally have no opinion regarding its veracity, nor any incentive to look into it, nor any point of my own to advance that could hinge upon it. Just wanted to let you know about it though. No, not for any particular reason. Anyway, carry on now.
2 Likes
-
Where on that dog’s-breakfast of a website are “all the papers for these claims … referenced”? That website has dozens of links on its front page, none of them even mention the Sudarium of Oviedo. Doing a search is likewise unhelpful – doing one on “sudarium” yields 181 results – far too many to trawl through.
-
Nothing about that website gives any impression that it is an objective, professional operation. It positively screams ‘enthusiast website’. I would suggest that the “Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc.” is little (nothing?) more than Barrie Schwortz. I would note that STERA’s listed address is residential (and most probably Schwortz’s home).
In summary, you have failed to identify specific and reliable facts supporting your claim.
Bill Cole’s score: 0/4
Further, as Roy identified above, your worthless MDPI article had already been debunked on a previous thread – so raising it again is simply dishonest sealioning!
Bill Cole’s score: -1/4
Bullshit like this Bill is why I said:
1 Like
Hi Tim
Here is the paper that discusses AB blood testing on the Shroud and mentions the Sudarium on page 15.
The paper comes from this page of Website. Scroll down to the scientific paper section. The link to this page is on page one of the website.
There’s a large quantity of something. I’ll grant you that.
1 Like
Debunked by Roy 
I think you need higher standards for debunking.
But Billy, you have no standards!
So excuse me while I replace my exploded irony meter.
You presented a paper from a disreputable publisher, using an unvalidated methodology, and are surprised that I would take @Roy’s unrebutted opinion of it over that of the most blatantly dishonest and vacuous sealion on this forum?
How is that displaying low standards?
Bill Cole’s score: -2/4
-
That paper appears to contain no original results.
-
That paper does not appear to have been peer-reviewed.
-
It’s author, Kelly P. Kearse’s, recent works are only on the subject of the Shroud, so these would appear to be simply the claims of yet-another not-objective ‘Shroudie’.
Addendum: it would seem that Kelly P. Kearse is a high school teacher – at Knoxville Catholic High School
Or, to put it more simply, this paper is worthless bullshit.
Bill Cole’s score: -2/5
I have already listed reasons why shroud.com Barrie Schwortz’s Amateur Dog and Pony Show is not a reliable source.
Bill Cole’s score: -2/6
Any further references to that ridiculous site will simply result in me pointing and laughing.
1 Like
I have similar memories.
I do think the Shroud is a very interesting relic—because the relic phenomenon itself has always fascinated me. So I am all for studying the most most notable relics for what they can tell us about the history of Christianity and how the relics had impact upon their cultures. But even if scientists are able to compile compelling evidence that the Shroud comes from first century Palestine, that still wouldn’t establish a connection to Jesus.
In any case, as a Christ-follower the Shroud just doesn’t have any special significance for me. But I’m open to any new evidence which could tell us more about the Shroud’s history for its own sake.
5 Likes
Hi Tim
You and your fellow skeptics tactic seems to be to dismiss all evidence that disagrees with your desired conclusion. Let’s see if you prove me wrong going forward.
Show some evidence then. What you’ve provided so far are claims that are either already debunked or are bald assertions. (That link to a random website is just handwaving and a Gish gallop, since no one could read those articles and dissect their conclusions in a reasonable amount of time.)
@AllenWitmerMiller’s question is valid: Why should I, as a Christian, care if the Shroud is an actual relic? I’m not one for relic veneration, so if it turns out to be real, it has no impact on me. I already believe that Jesus rose from the dead, so it has no impact on me that way either. And clearly it’s a hard sell to convince any skeptic that the Shroud is legitimate – it’s not having any impact on the non-Christian participants of this forum. This seems to be nothing but a futile exercise in sealioning.
3 Likes
No Bill. My “tactic” is to “dismiss” so-called ‘evidence’ that comes from unreliable sources, such as publishers that have a poor reputation for “editorial and academic rigor”, and an obvious Shroud fan-site (and particularly a non-peer-reviewed, high-school-teacher-authored piece posted there). This “tactic” is merely that of ensuring that the discussion has a rigorous basis.
If this “tactic” restricts your ability to bullshit (engage in “speech intended to persuade without regard for truth”) freely, then that’s really your problem. 
I would note that, you reintroduced the MDPI paper that @Roy had previously debunked, while FAILING to rebut that debunking, you were practicing sealioning as generally defined (" ignoring or sidestepping any evidence … already presented").
3 Likes