The Shroud of Turin

“No abstract is available for this article.”

Apparently not. :smiley: Your “debunking” isn’t even referring to the paper I linked to.

2 Likes

Sanity checking, using the simpler equation (fraction remaining) = (1/2) ^ (t /halflife):

(1/2)^(700/5700) ~ 0.92
(1/2)^(40000/5700) ~ 0.0077
(1/2)^(100000/5700) ~ 0.0000052

Looks good.

2 Likes

If I am not mistaken, it is only non-theists who are presenting the evidence against the “Shroud of Turin” in this thread.

If so, why is that? Do Christians not care that obviously fraudulent claims are being made in defense of their faith?

1 Like

Here’s something anyone can try for themselves: As anyone who looks at the image on the “shroud” will notice, the figure is very modestly holding his hands in a position to cover his genitals. Now, leaving aside the question of why a body would be laid out in a tomb in this position, try lying down on the grounds with all your muscles relaxed and hold your hands in the same position. It is just possible, but only by stretching into a particular and unnatural position. A dead body just laid out on a slab is not going to hold this position.

2 Likes

Not quite. But it is not unusual for Christians to give a free pass to even the grossest misinformation from their fellow Christians under the guise of not showing disagreement in public.

2 Likes

You guys are doing just fine. I am skeptical of the Turin shroud too. Doesn’t add up.

Except I’m known for doing exactly the opposite.

2 Likes

OK, thanks for the vote of confidence. I think some of your fellow believers might sometimes need reminders of what are essential elements of their faith, and what are silly claims that can be dismissed without rejecting Christianity as a whole.

2 Likes

That’s true.

In this case I’m less knowledable about the details of the Turin shroud. I’d rather learn more before arguing one side or the other. I have not seen any convincing evidence for the shroud yet, but maybe I am just ignorant. It looks more like a lot of evidence against it.

If I think any side is playing unfair and getting away with it, well that is where I feel it’s important to say something. If it is an area about which I am informed and have expertise I also feel it’s important to say something too. This conversation hasn’t met either threshold.

2 Likes

The “shroud” was carbon dated to the 13th to 14th century. The results were published in Nature.

End of discussion.

Shroud believers deny this evidence. YEC’s also deny the radiometric dating of the earth.

3 Likes

Pretty much summarizes it for me, if that is all the salient info, as it seems to be.

1 Like

What do the @physicists and @davidson think about this neutron theory of the age of the Turin shroud?

Certainly seems ad hoc but I’m curious if it is even plausible.

It is apparently based upon this now retracted journal article:
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Is the Shroud of Turin in relation to the Old Jerusalem historical earthquake?

Archive of article before retraction:

I can’t get this to load but here is a summary of why the retraction:

I have no comment on the actual article itself.

2 Likes

I would assume you can produce any amount of 14C by bombarding 14N with neutrons since that is how 14C is produced in the upper atmosphere. The ad hoc nature of the proposal is pretty obvious, since this mechanism would have affected all organic artifacts from that period and before. I don’t know of any other artifacts dug up in Jerusalem that have anamolous 14C dates.

2 Likes

Your impression is wrong. The only serious evidence against the authenticity of the shroud is the carbon dating performed in 1988. On the other hand, countless other evidences support the authenticity thesis. And since current statistical analyses of the carbon dating study indicate that the conclusion of this dating, i.e. that the Shroud dates to 1260 to 1390 AD, is badly flawed, the most reasonable conclusion is that the Shroud is authentic. This is why I said at the beginning of this conversation that the Shroud supports the Gospel accounts.

Even assuming that you are right about the carbon dating analysis, the most reasonable conclusion is that we don’t know the age of the shroud. You would need a dating technique that accurately dated the shroud to the time of Jesus in order to claim that it is authentic.

What is the evidence it was badly flawed?

The article below will show you that 6 out of 7 independent dating methods supports the idea that the Shroud dates from the time of Jesus.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330084766_Why_is_the_Turin_Shroud_Authentic/fulltext/5c2cb089458515a4c7075e66/330084766_Why_is_the_Turin_Shroud_Authentic.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Here it is:

https://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm#raw

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.12467

LOL! That’s pretty funny. Some dedicated Shroud true believers decided they wanted to show the shroud was 2000 years old so they invented 5 new “dating” techniques used by no one archaeology. To the surprise of absolutely no one all five showed the shroud to be…wait for it…exactly 2000 years old! Miracle! :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

I don’t really care about this but since you’re all having such a nice conversation, I remembered this from back when I first heard of this thing:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276415604_New_coincidence_between_Shroud_of_Turin_and_Sudarium_of_Oviedo

1 Like