Saturday, April 14, 2012
The Unreliability Of The Carbon Dating Of The Shroud Of Turin
The large majority of the evidence suggests that the Shroud of Turin predates the medieval era. The 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud is an exception that's often cited. However, there are a lot of problems with that carbon testing. Dan Porter has gathered together some of the relevant evidence here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So why not just do another carbon dating test?
ReplyDeleteThe author only spends two sentences raising this question and then one sentence with an ambiguous response: "But what would have to happen before new radiocarbon dating test could take place?"
Well, I don't know, what? So... why not just retest it?
Jonathan:
ReplyDeleteOne reason not to do it is that the supposed unreliability of the carbon dating is itself severely flawed.
Another reason is that people who desperately wish for the shroud to be real, despite the Scriptural, historical, and scientific evidence, will still find some pretext to dismiss the new C-14 readings (which will, in all likelihood, produce the same result as the old ones).
-TurretinFan
Turrentinfan,
ReplyDeleteSo you dispute the findings of Rogers, Marino, et. al.? Is there a credible source for disputing their findings?
I also might add:
ReplyDeleteThere are people who desperately wish for the shroud NOT to be real.
To put my own cards on the table - I am not fully convinced that it the actual shroud of Christ, but neither am I unconvinced. The evidence is compelling, but there remains a number of questions unanswered. I don't think anyone with a credible eye toward the evidence can easily dismiss it nor wholly embrace it.
TurretinFan,
ReplyDeleteYou’ve been using phrases like “cannot possibly be real” and “we can be sure that the shroud is a hoax”. You keep using that sort of language, without presenting much of an argument for your position and without making much of an effort to interact with the counterarguments, yet you criticize other people for being “desperate”.
You refer to “people who desperately wish for the shroud to be real”. For most of my life, I didn’t accept the Shroud. I changed my position after looking into the subject further. I’m not desperate. I see no reason to think that the charge of desperation has much significance in response to Porter’s article that I cited. Ray Rogers, one of the primary researchers in this context, not only didn’t expect to reach the conclusions he did, but even expected to conclude the opposite instead. Some of the people who accept the Shroud’s authenticity aren’t even Christians, like Barrie Schwortz and Michael Prescott. Others, like me, are Christians, but were initially skeptical of the Shroud. Porter, whose article I cited, was initially skeptical. What’s the significance of raising the desperation issue in this context?
For those who are interested, you can read my earlier interactions with TurretinFan regarding the Shroud here.
Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteI don’t know much about the Vatican’s reasoning on this subject. I suspect there are multiple factors involved in their not having arranged a retesting yet. Keep in mind that a lot of the research casting doubt on the carbon dating just occurred within the last several years. Rogers’ article, for example, wasn’t published until 2005. There’s disagreement about the significance of carbon dating, so there could be disputes at that sort of philosophical level within Vatican circles. Then there’s the question of the damage that would be done to the Shroud by more testing and the potential to avoid that damage by waiting for the technology to develop. Given the widespread criticism that occurred after the 1988 testing and the restoration of the Shroud in 2002, the Vatican has even more motivation than usual to move slowly.
Whatever their reasoning, I agree that more testing should be done. I expect it to be done eventually, probably within our lifetime and sooner rather than later. But Evangelicals who are highly interested in apologetics and want to get at the truth about the Shroud as soon as possible probably aren’t much of a reflection of the priorities of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteWhether you are sincerely duped or desperate to believe what is has already been proved to be a medieval fabrication is not really the issue.
That said, I certainly accept that you may well be in the former category.
-TurretinFan
Turrentinfan,
ReplyDeleteYour comments are easily dismissed because they are vacuous. Supply credible sources for your claims and they will be considered. I have searched for refutations of Roger's findings and have found none. Where are they?
MSC:
ReplyDeleteYour demands for me to do work for you are easily dismissed.
-TurretinFan
The Shroud of Turin cannot POSSIBLY be Christ.
ReplyDeleteThe Shroud clearly shows a man with shoulder-length hair (if not longer).
1 Corinthians 11:14 "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him"
I mean unless Paul was thinking Crystal Gayle long (which I doubt) ...
The shroud is a real thing.
ReplyDeleteCoke a cola is too!
The shroud captures the clear image and semblance of a man with wounds as if of one crucified. Humanity has been killing people by crucifixion long before the Romans killed Our Savior outside Jerusalem on that eventful day. Ezr_6:11 Also I make a decree that if anyone alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of his house, and he shall be impaled on it, and his house shall be made a dunghill.
So what?
Is this gnat straining going to whittle down this camel?:
Isa 52:13 Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted.
Isa 52:14 As many were astonished at you-- his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind--
Isa 52:15 so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.
Whoever's face and image that is that is captured by whatever way, God knows, on that shroud cannot be the face of Jesus or else you will have to displace the Prophet Isaiah's words!
Isa_50:4 The Lord GOD has given me the tongue of those who are taught, that I may know how to sustain with a word him who is weary. Morning by morning he awakens; he awakens my ear to hear as those who are taught.
"One reason not to do it is that the supposed unreliability of the carbon dating is itself severely flawed."
ReplyDeleteNo offense but could you please cite a source supporting this claim. Thank You
Turrentinfan,
ReplyDeleteI have done the research and there is none. The fact that you can't provide a single credible source to refute the claims of Rogers suggests to me that you have NOT done the research yourself or you did and also found nothing. My guess is the former because you don't seem to even be familiar with Roger's work on the matter.
MSC: I'm totally uninterested in your speculation. - TurretinFan
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect Tfan, MSC has asked for evidence for your claims, professed to research things pertaining to Rogers work, and seems sincere in asking for something for you to show him otherwise - yet you dismiss it flippantly and tell him to do his own work? This doesn't seem reasonable to me, as I have read your work daily for years, am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteTURRETINFAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Jason, Whether you are sincerely duped or desperate to believe what is has already been proved to be a medieval fabrication is not really the issue. That said, I certainly accept that you may well be in the former category."
Even if Jason is mistaken, he's never been a dupe.
DbH:
ReplyDeleteMSC came in with the demand: "Is there a credible source for disputing their findings?"
When he wasn't immediately given one, he demanded again: "Supply credible sources for your claims and they will be considered."
When he was informed I wasn't going to do his research for him, he responded: "The fact that you can't provide a single credible source to refute the claims of Rogers suggests to me that you have NOT done the research yourself or you did and also found nothing."
So, you see, he hasn't in fact merely asked for evidence of my claims. He's been asking for a "credible source" that refutes Rogers.
But you'll notice that I haven't made any comment about whether such a "credible source" exists. What MSC is not doing is asking for evidence. He's asking for something that he believes doesn't exist and then complaining loudly when I don't provide it for him.
- TurretinFan