Christian Icons thread - Part I. The Shroud of Turin.

[shadow2k]

http://www.shroudstory.com/art.htm

Any method that might be devised must be scientifically credulous...

What a load. Talk about hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here is a short National geographic article that points to another artilce I will find.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0127_050127_pin_shroud.html

Here is a longer NGS article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html

 

[Birdjaguar]

This link has lots of science in the call out boxes. It is OK claim site bias, but is the science discussed wrong? Because there is no accepted scientific position, the burden of proof is on both sides. With evolution, science has a very strong case and the burden of proof is on those who disagree. With the shroud, the "made by man" group has no body of work to support their side. The science being done is tipping the scales away from "man-made". That does not necessarily support a "miracle".

http://www.shroudstory.com/shroud-of-turin-for-journalists.htm

 

[shadow2k]

This link has lots of science in the call out boxes. It is OK claim site bias, but is the science discussed wrong? Because there is no accepted scientific position, the burden of proof is on both sides. With evolution, science has a very strong case and the burden of proof is on those who disagree. With the shroud, the "made by man" group has no body of work to support their side. The science being done is tipping the scales away from "man-made". That does not necessarily support a "miracle".

http://www.shroudstory.com/shroud-of-turin-for-journalists.htm

The problem with it is that if they don't immediately find proof of it being man made (including that part about conforming to the culture of the times), they immediately revert to it being a miracle of God. It's somehow ok to believe that God did it, without any proof, but not ok to believe man did it, without any proof.

Hell, if there's no proof that it's man made, I think I'll just believe that the Keebler Elves made it. They've been known to make some pretty miraculous looking cookies.

 

[cgannon64]

Is it just me, or is this thread littered with strawmen? Very decisively murdered strawmen, yes, but strawmen...

 

[Birdjaguar]

The problem with it is that if they don't immediately find proof of it being man made (including that part about conforming to the culture of the times), they immediately revert to it being a miracle of God. It's somehow ok to believe that God did it, without any proof, but not ok to believe man did it, without any proof.

Science has set itself up as the arbitor of truth. When it fails to explain to its own satisfaction it leaves the door open to alternative of posssibilities. String theory and brane theory are two other examples of theory without scientific support that filled the vacuum when actual research vacated the field (mathematical balance is not scientific support).

So what if the other side quickly claims a godly miracle? What would you expect? If the research had turned up a healthy coat of Sears best interior latex paint, how many of the people who believe like you would be out saying "I told you so!"? You should concentrate on the science and not the people factor.

Hell, if there's no proof that it's man made, I think I'll just believe that the Keebler Elves made it. They've been known to make some pretty miraculous looking cookies.

You can, but even the most rabid christians have more supporting evidence on their side than you do.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is it just me, or is this thread littered with strawmen? Very decisively murdered strawmen, yes, but strawmen...

Should I applaud you or take you to task? I've never really understood that "strawman" thing.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@nanocyborgasm: Here is the link to the published study that undid the carbon 14 dating from 1988.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...+shroud&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=opera

 

[shadow2k]

You can, but even the most rabid christians have more supporting evidence on their side than you do.

Supporting evidence? No, it's a lack of evidence for other things. And when men can't explain something with logic or reason...the next step has always been (historically) to attribute it to a higher power. They don't use evidence to come to these conclusions, quite the opposite. They use a lack of evidence.

 

[ironduck]

This link has lots of science in the call out boxes. It is OK claim site bias, but is the science discussed wrong? Because there is no accepted scientific position, the burden of proof is on both sides. With evolution, science has a very strong case and the burden of proof is on those who disagree. With the shroud, the "made by man" group has no body of work to support their side. The science being done is tipping the scales away from "man-made". That does not necessarily support a "miracle".

http://www.shroudstory.com/shroud-of-turin-for-journalists.htm

I'll look at that link later, but it's from the same site and I'm highly suspicious of any statements on that site simply because I consider it to have a strong agenda. Is the science wrong? I don't know because I haven't seen any other claims of how the cloth is dyed - the NG link referred to the same guy that wrote the article, so that doesn't help anything.

And what burden of proof is on the science side? I don't see science as having any burden of proof here. Science is about investigating the world, that's all. If someone makes a claim then there's a burden of proof on that claim. And I already told you why it looks like it is somehow man-made from my perspective. I don't have any other evidence than human anatomy (a rather important point which seems completely overlooked in the 'this is Jesus' camp), and I'm not worried about being proven wrong. I actually don't really care much about this shroud in the first place.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Supporting evidence? No, it's a lack of evidence for other things. And when men can't explain something with logic or reason...the next step has always been (historically) to attribute it to a higher power. They don't use evidence to come to these conclusions, quite the opposite. They use a lack of evidence.

The evidence used by some christians is that the cloth appears to be of 1st C origin; the figure is more representative of a crucified man/jesus than any other person or category of person you can name. What can you offer up?

Most ancient burial cloths rot away before they are discovered by someone who wants to preserve it. For some reason this one was removed from the grave soon after burial and preserved for many many years. The provonance of the shroud has a debatable path that takes it back to Edessa in 944 AD. It is very easy to take the available facts and create a plausible story that is easy for adherents to accept. The opposition does not seem to be able to do the same.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And what burden of proof is on the science side? I don't see science as having any burden of proof here.

So you don't think that the claim it is man-made needs to be supported by any proof? You claim that the drawing "looks like it was done by a person who doesn't know anatomy" is no better than saying "the face looks like jesus" as evidence.

Would you accept a documented chemical reaction as the source of the image?

 

[ironduck]

So you don't think that the claim it is man-made needs to be supported by any proof? You claim that the drawing "looks like it was done by a person who doesn't know anatomy" is no better than saying "the face looks like jesus" as evidence.

Excuse me? I wasn't making a scientific claim. I was offering my own observation. You are free to compare it to an actual human and note the anatomical flaws yourself. And actually my claim is that it looks the same way as a person who is untrained in drawing the human figure will draw it. The person may know anatomy, but is unable to draw it. A physician knows anatomy. How many physicians are capable of accurately depicting the human figure? Very few. It takes practice.

Would you accept a documented chemical reaction as the source of the image?

I think you're stating things backwards there. What can be done is analyze the components of the cloth and a hypothesis can be formed involving a possible chemical reaction taking place. Then that hypothesis can be tested. It would certainly be interesting if a verified examination of the components was made and a duplication of the results of the shroud could be perfomed!

 

[shadow2k]

The evidence used by some christians is that the cloth appears to be of 1st C origin; the figure is more representative of a crucified man/jesus than any other person or category of person you can name. What can you offer up?

Most ancient burial cloths rot away before they are discovered by someone who wants to preserve it. For some reason this one was removed from the grave soon after burial and preserved for many many years. The provonance of the shroud has a debatable path that takes it back to Edessa in 944 AD. It is very easy to take the available facts and create a plausible story that is easy for adherents to accept. The opposition does not seem to be able to do the same.

John 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Jews wrapped their dead in strips of white linen, much like you'd think of an Egyptian mummy. The bible confirms this was how Jesus was allegedly put to rest. That sheet doesn't match up with the custom, or the biblical account.

What's the real proof? The age is still debated. Say it is from the time of Jesus, it proves nothing other than when it's from.

Who it looks like? Do we really know that's what Jesus looked like? Looks like the homeless guy on the curb to me. With of course, the deformations as people have talked about.

It's easy to find proof of anything you'd like when there's an omnipotent/omniscient being that you can attribute anything you can't explain to. Science takes a bit longer than that, no instant gratification here.

 

[warpus]

Science has set itself up as the arbitor of truth. When it fails to explain to its own satisfaction it leaves the door open to alternative of posssibilities.

The problem is that "We can't figure it out right now - so God must've done it" isn't much of an argument.

We can't figure it out right now - so aliens must've done it. -- is just as credible of an argument.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Excuse me? I wasn't making a scientific claim. I was offering my own observation. You are free to compare it to an actual human and note the anatomical flaws yourself. And actually my claim is that it looks the same way as a person who is untrained in drawing the human figure will draw it. The person may know anatomy, but is unable to draw it. A physician knows anatomy. How many physicians are capable of accurately depicting the human figure? Very few. It takes practice.

You did claim that science does not have any burden of prooof. I was questioning that statement. Then I compared your anatomy opinions to the opinions of christians who say it looks like Jesus. They are of similar type.

I think you're stating things backwards there. What can be done is analyze the components of the cloth and a hypothesis can be formed involving a possible chemical reaction taking place. Then that hypothesis can be tested. It would certainly be interesting if a verified examination of the components was made and a duplication of the results of the shroud could be perfomed!

The work is already under way.

Shroud of Turin Chemistry of the Images

Some of the cellulose fibers that when twisted together make up the threads of the Shroud's cloth are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch fractions and various sugars. This chemical layer, which is about as thick as the transparent scratch-resistant coatings used for eye glasses, is essentially colorless and is found only on the outermost fibers near the surface. In some places, the layer has undergone a chemical change that appears straw-yellow. This chemical change is similar to the change that takes place when sugar is heated to make caramel or when proteins react with sugar giving beer its color. And it is the straw-yellow, selectively present in some parts of the carbohydrate layer, that makes up the image we see on the Shroud. When scientists speak of image fibers they are referring to the coating on lengths of fiber that have undergone this chemical change.

Shroud science seems to have shifted away from proving it is a fraud to trying to understand what it really is. I think that is a healthier approach. By default, such a shift is easily perceived as biased towards religion when it may not be at all.

I think that the anti religious crowd is afraid of anything that does not prove a post 1st c origin. They are afraid of a narrow gap between the final science report and any kind of jump to miraculous event. Their problem is that the science is working against them at the moment.

 

[GenMarshall]

Is it just me, or is this thread littered with strawmen? Very decisively murdered strawmen, yes, but strawmen...

I agree, Thats why I avoided this thread untill now. So many Scarecrows from the Wizard of OZ torn up in here .

 

[Birdjaguar]

John 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Jews wrapped their dead in strips of white linen, much like you'd think of an Egyptian mummy. The bible confirms this was how Jesus was allegedly put to rest. That sheet doesn't match up with the custom, or the biblical account.

What's the real proof? The age is still debated. Say it is from the time of Jesus, it proves nothing other than when it's from.

Who it looks like? Do we really know that's what Jesus looked like? Looks like the homeless guy on the curb to me. With of course, the deformations as people have talked about.

It's easy to find proof of anything you'd like when there's an omnipotent/omniscient being that you can attribute anything you can't explain to. Science takes a bit longer than that, no instant gratification here.

I don't disagree. All science can do is put the cloth and image in a context. It cannot (I don't believe) determine who the person depicted is or if he was of divine origin. The closer the cloth is positioned to 30 AD Jerusalem the easier it will be for christians to claim it is jesus.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The problem is that "We can't figure it out right now - so God must've done it" isn't much of an argument.

We can't figure it out right now - so aliens must've done it. -- is just as credible of an argument.

That is correct, but why would expect something different from religious people? Just like Perf is going to say "show me the proof." in his evolution thread, the christians are going to say "It's god's work." when talking about things like this.

The science is in progress on this one and you are alive to witness as it unfolds. Later students will read about what was determined to be true and will see it as a date on a page: Shroud of Turin verified as a very good 20th c fake! Well like most events in history, this one is not just one event. It is a series in which people struggle to force their ideas on to others. This one you get to see first hand. You can read the arguments and counter arguments first hand and unfiltered by intervening years or biased historians. We are all very lucky.

 

[ironduck]

You did claim that science does not have any burden of prooof. I was questioning that statement. Then I compared your anatomy opinions to the opinions of christians who say it looks like Jesus. They are of similar type.

I don't understand why you make all these wrong assumptions concerning my posts. Science has no burden of proof. Science is about exploring the world. It's a methodology. A scientific claim has a burden of proof. That's a completely different thing. I haven't made any scientific claims. I'm noting that the anatomy of the figure in the picture looks flawed. You can go ahead and verify it or dispute it by yourself by looking at actual pictures of human beings. Or you can ignore my statement. In contrast, the people who say it look like Jesus have nothing to back up their claims with since there is no picture of Jesus anywhere. You are free to verify or dispute my findings regarding human anatomy. But you have no way to verify their 'findings' about it looking like Jesus because there's nothing to verify it against. Unless I missed some part of the bible where very specific claims regarding the looks of Jesus are described. All I've seen so far are possible holes from crucifixion, something you yourself described as a high dose of wishful thinking.

The work is already under way.

I already read that and it was by the same author. I'd like to see someone with a more objective approach - and not least I'd like to see a reproduction of the result.

Shroud science seems to have shifted away from proving it is a fraud to trying to understand what it really is. I think that is a healthier approach. By default, such a shift is easily perceived as biased towards religion when it may not be at all.

I have no stake in this so I actually don't care if it's a fraud or not. Yet, it seems you're claiming that everyone who's pointing out problems are not being openminded. That's really your own loss.

I think that the anti religious crowd is afraid of anything that does not prove a post 1st c origin. They are afraid of a narrow gap between the final science report and any kind of jump to miraculous event. Their problem is that the science is working against them at the moment.

I don't see how that concerns me. All I've seen so far is the extremely biased guy from that website and then a pointing out that the C14 analysis was made from a different part of the cloth. Well, that is easy to solve - just take something from a different spot. That's what I meant with scientists not really getting to do a lot of research on this thing because it's closely guarded by the church. For all I know other parts of the cloth could be from 1500 BC.

Btw, do you have any idea of what the patterns on both sides of the cloth are? Is that explained anywhere? Also, what are the exact dimensions of the person on the cloth?

I think the only reason this cloth is so interesting to so many people is that it has the whole Jesus thing attached to it now. As the OP states, it's become an icon. If it looked like a woman and was found in South America it probably wouldn't be all about divine this and that. It would simply be an unsolved mystery, and we sure as heck have a lot of those.