If the shroud is authentic, the WAXS analysis either gives a maximum age that’s ~30 years out, or an estimated age that’s ~170 years out. Your “65 year error” seems to be based on mixing up the dates for Jesus’s birth and death.
In any case, the WAXS test doesn’t give an age. It gives a measure of degradation and, as you noted this is (unlike carbon dating) influenced by the environment. Nor has this been calibrated to age. Any dating from WAXS is dependent on dates derived by other means. So the most WAXS can give is an indication as to which of two samples may be older if they have similar environmental histories. If this can be wrong - and for the shroud to be genuine it has to be wrong - then you can’t deduce anything from the WAXS result without a great deal more analysis of both the history of the items and the effects of environment on WAXS analysis - neither of which are available.
Either the WAXS result is meaningful, in which case the shroud is not old enough to be genuine, or the WAXS result is not meaningful, in which case it doesn’t cast doubt on the carbon dating.
As for contamination, AIUI the sample used for WAXS analysis was from the same part of the shroud as used for carbon dating - so any contamination would affect the WAXS analysis as well. If the carbon dating result is not reliable due to contamination, the WAXS result isn’t reliable either.
Apart from the WAXS method not being sufficiently solid to cast any doubt on the carbon date, there is another issue if you want to claim contamination.
For contamination to cause a real age of ~2000y to appear to be ~700y, there would need to be more contamination than original sample - which would be bloody obvious to anyone handling it - or the material would have to be contaminated with something that gave a carbon date in the far future. If you want to claim the carbon date was a result of contamination, then say what and how much the shroud might have been contaminated with and provide the maths yourself - and if you can’t manage that, then stop making such claims.
Finally, it’s not the “waxes” method, it’s the “WAXS” method. If you can’t even get that right, nothing you say on the subject merits any attention.
Another point: I can’t see anywhere in the WAXS study where they analyzed the effect radioactive emissions from a cadaver undergoing resurrection would have on the results. Did I just miss it? If so, please quote where this is discussed.
There would be if you didn’t like the result. But since the carbon dating of the Dead Sea scrolls matches your expectations, you don’t raise any of the objections you raised for the carbon dating of the shroud.
Your double standards are more obvious than a coalfield in a bouillabaisse.
The minimum date is not absolute. 65 years is very close. Dating has errors.
The dating is not an absolute piece of data because of errors and the unknown condition of the shroud. In the case of carbon due to contamination in the case of waxes due to temperature.
The important piece of data from waxes and the other tests is that there is an issue with the sample that has skewed the carbon test.
Neutron emissions is a problem for a method that measures decay of carbon 14 as it would add carbon 14. The waxes method measures de polymerisation.
Can you cite the experiments demonstrating that the resurrection of a cadaver does not affect the polymerisation of any linen fabrics that happen to be in the vicinity? Thanks in advance.
No, it’s just the minimum. It’s the lowest the data is claimed to still warrant given the most extreme conceivable error. In other words, claiming an age even older is a rejection / dismissal of the evidence as gathered in that study. Claiming an age even older is expressly the opposite of following the evidence. But do carry on.
Yes. And assuming the worst possible contamination, the WAXS date drops as low as 65 AD and no lower[1]. So claiming anything lower amounts to overtly dismissing the WAXS date at its most generous. Why do we waste any time even discussing the WAXS study, if you are so happy to altogether throw it out in favour of your preferred conclusion which it clearly conflicts with?
Yes, yes, never mind the fact that even if one were to take the WAXS dating seriously it would still indicate the shroud is not authentic. Let’s pay no attention to that, shall we.
Ah yes, and as we all know, when nuclear blasts alter carbon or nitrogen isotopes all over a material, that has zero effect on any of the organic polymers in that material. It’s not like they are the single most prominent elements in polymers like that. Yes, never mind any of that, that’s a completely different subject.
Hi, Gisteren,
please, explain what you mean exactly by “minimum”. What evidence have you to justify your definition of that word? Ork, ork, ork! ↩︎
This shows almost no understanding of the methods. You should read the papers to better understand the methods. The waxes test assumes an average temperature. If the actual is different then the range will change.
This is a very poor argument and you will understand this if you take the time to understand the test methods and what causes errors.
Then neither is the maximum, and the WAXS test can’t rule out the shroud being only 700 years old.
It doesn’t matter how close 65 years is. “65 years” is irrelevant. It only came up because you couldn’t work out the difference between 65AD and when Jesus died.
Your inability to handle primary school mathematics renders anything you say about more complex results irrelevant.
I also find it curious that a nuclear blast of this magnitude would have no effect on the results of a test that is so sensitive to temperature that variation of only a few degrees can skew the measured dating by several centuries.
If you would read the paper you would understand why this is not an issue. There was a fire and the team tested if short spurts of increased temperature would increase depolymerisation.
No, it’s an argument that means you do not yet understand basic arithmetic. Since the effects of temperature require at least basic arithmetic, your opinion of them is irrelevant.
Did they test if short spurts of literally changing the nuclei in a significant portion of the atoms comprising all of the polymers alters depolymerization?
Or is it, perchance, the case that in order for their study to mean jack poop at all, the whole nuclear contamination “theory” needs to fly out the window, leaving you and yours with no way of dismissing the carbon date?
What is irrelevant is your assertions about my understanding of mathematics or test and measurement.
Let’s stop beating each other up and learn something here. You did look at the paper and the graphs which puts you ahead of most. Now it’s time to take a deeper dive into the measurement methods and to understand why a minimum may have assumptions that if changed by a little will move the minimum.
I am aware of that. All they did was put it in a 200 degree oven for 30 mins. That’s barely enough to warm up a slice of pizza. Do you think that sort of treatment would change the C-14 content of a linen fabric enough to make it seem 1300 years younger than it actually is? If so, please explain your reasoning.
If the minimum is a not-actually-a-minimum, then we are dealing with dishonest reporting. Sure, there may be assumptions that go in for the estimation of that minimum, and they may ultimately turn out to be incorrect, but unless you wish to accuse the authors of lying, their estimation of the minimum should be understood as the minimum under assumptions that are reasonable given the data. Rejecting it, once again, amounts to dismissing conclusions as they are warranted by the data in favour of ones that are not, according to the authors you wish to cite for your overall case.
Based on this statement it does not appear you have followed the arguments. The contamination of the sample could be due to repair which was part of @Giltil original thesis.
If you watch the video I posted a while back, you will understand why this is a bug of this method, and not a feature. The dating is so sensitive to minor variations in temperature, that one basically needs to know the exact location and temperature/humidity conditions of where the “shroud” was at every given point of time in order to interpret the results. But if you already know that, you have no need for any dating tests.
One result of this flaw, which I suspect is actually an advantage for Fanti’s purposes, is that the results can easily be fudged to give almost any result you want.
