I, like you, hold no opinion one way or the other about the authenticity of the Shroud, itself, but the Shafersman article evidences the same sloppy and careless bilge that passes for "science" in most evolutionarilly-premised commentary characterized as it is by similar demonstrations of such pedestrian intellect.
Shafersman is too busy trying to be cute, smarmy, and contemptuous to even get the entire history of the artifact correct. His atheistic/agnostic underpinnings render useless his ability to think as a forensic scientist. Not only that though, as so often is the case, along comes the agnostic/atheistic evolutionary acolyte pasting pap like this into this FR thread as though it is evidence for anything more that sloppy forensics. The weaknesses in his position are many and as noted by many in other postings to this thread, his position has been soundly refuted.
Shafersman openly demonstrates his own dismal understanding of what constitutes valid, scientifically based forensic technique as it pertains to radiocarbon dating. He failed to obtain the readily available, published history of the Shroud. Had Shafersman’s research not been so lazy to start with he would have known that the Shroud was exposed to a significant fire in the building where the Shroud was kept in year 1532. Such an exposure only results in skewed, un-interpretatable data in the context of radiocarbon dating.
The blind fealty the guy pays to radiocarbon dating --- as do most evolutionists to this technique --- reveals the most gaping flaw in the technique itself and the inability of such testing to accurately estimate the age of anything older than maybe a few hundred years. The point is this: atmospheric and other physical conditions in which the sample resides must have remained essentially unchanged since the time the sample was generated in order for radiocarbon dating to have any level of accuracy.
Clearly in the case of the Shroud, radiometric carbon dating is useless. Shafersman’s and his sycophant’s intent, I suspect has more to do with their desire to cast doubt upon the fact of Christ’s resurrection, whether or not the event in anyway is evidenced by the Shroud.
Sadly, their rabid atheism/agnosticism colors their collective abilities to think scientifically. An evo will believe what he wants to believe and make up anything about a fossil he cares to, to promote his career or merely his intellectual, and most often godless self-satisfaction.
Witness the recent shame brought upon the gullible evo community when one of their own (von Zieten) perpetrated yet another evolutionary phony missing link fraud upon his bretheren. The “fossil” still stunk of morbid decay and was more obviously dated to no more than 250 years old, yet his supposed radiocarbon dating had placed the age of the “fossil” conveniently right where he needed it to be to fit his premise. Didn't stop the initial endorsements of the hallowed "peer-reviewed," process though did it? Of course, not, because it validated what they wanted to believe about von Zeiten's work. Peer review didn't expose him, however. von Zieten's fossil theft did.
von Zeiten's casual temptation to bias supposedly radio-metrically derived results without having them objectively questioned by the antropological community is likely the same cover that Shafersman believes his position enjoys. If anything can be said about the "peer-review" process, it has little to do with objective critique of evidence presented to support the position, so long as the evolution-speak dogma is sufficiently parroted.
So much for the value of radiometric dating --– of the Shroud --- or of anything else for that matter. Scientifically, it is a patently worthless dating technique.
Actually, you're the one who is operating under a gross misunderstanding. Being exposed to a "signficant fire" would have minimal impact on on a radiocarbon date. Heat or fire itself is no impediment to radiocarbon dating, and charcoal left after a campfire or forestfire is still suitable for radiocarbon dating. Nor would soot or other kind of carbon contamination be a significant factor, because the amount of contamination necessary to significantly alter the radiocarbon date of a sample would be on the order of as much soot as original material -- something that could not possibly go unnoticed. Shafersman undoubtedly knows this, even though you don't. Thus your frantic attack on Shafersman's "failure" falls on its face. Care to try again?
But just for giggles, please expand upon and support your claim that: "Such an exposure only results in skewed, un-interpretatable data in the context of radiocarbon dating." Explain the exact mechanism by which a fire allegedly "results in skewed, un-interpretatable data" for radiocarbon dating, and run some numbers for us on the exact amount of error which would be introduced thereby (including volumetric analysis of the temperatures and/or chemicals involved and their effect on radiocarbon assays). We'll wait. I mean, since you're such a self-appointed expert on this topic, you won't have any problem actually analyzing this for us dolts with the science degrees, to show us where we've made our "mistakes" on this topic for so many decades.
The blind fealty the guy pays to radiocarbon dating --- as do most evolutionists to this technique --- reveals
...reveals a working knowledge of the *vast* amount of research and verification of this very reliable dating method which has been conducted over more than half a century, resulting in a well-founded trust in its accuracy and reliability. Quite frankly, only a fool or a scientific ignoramus could say something as wildly inaccurate as, well, what you go on to say:
the most gaping flaw in the technique itself and the inability of such testing to accurately estimate the age of anything older than maybe a few hundred years.
Quite simply, nonsense. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating when compared against samples of known age (up to tens of thousands of years) has been validated literally millions of times over, as well as its cross-validation by its close match to the results of other types of independent dating methods. How are you unaware of this? And with your striking lack of knowledge, how on Earth do you feel qualified to "lecture" scientists on this matter?
The point is this: atmospheric and other physical conditions in which the sample resides must have remained essentially unchanged since the time the sample was generated in order for radiocarbon dating to have any level of accuracy.
Complete twaddle. But you keep on believing whatever you like. Here's a cookie. Now run and play with your friends.
Clearly in the case of the Shroud, radiometric carbon dating is useless.
Stamp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue too -- that's also a popular method of attempting to deny reality. And it's more dramatic than your empty and false declaration above.
Shafersman’s and his sycophant’s intent, I suspect has more to do with their desire to cast doubt upon the fact of Christ’s resurrection, whether or not the event in anyway is evidenced by the Shroud.
Ah, yes, it's the *conspiracy*! (Cue ominous music.)
Sadly, their rabid atheism/agnosticism colors their collective abilities to think scientifically.
Oh. Then what's *your* excuse for your falsehoods about radiocarbon dating?
Look, if your bigotry causes you to (mis)label any evolutionist (or any scientist who accepts any well-established scientific position which clashes with what you'd prefer to believe) as an "atheist", and then dismiss any such position simply because it comes from a (presumed) "atheist" (because you're certain that they're all deceitful devils, right?), then maybe you can calm down and listen for a change and finally learn something about this subject when it comes from avowed Christians: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective .
An evo will believe what he wants to believe and make up anything about a fossil he cares to, to promote his career or merely his intellectual, and most often godless self-satisfaction.
ROFL! You sound like a fundamentalist parody from "The Onion". Are you for real?
And how does your little conspiracy theory account for the fact that the majority of American "evo's" are actually *CHRISTIAN*? Sorry if I made your head explode.
So much for the value of radiometric dating --– of the Shroud --- or of anything else for that matter. Scientifically, it is a patently worthless dating technique.
Why, just because you say so? *snort*
Tell me, from what grossly unreliable source did you get your "knowledge" of radiocarbon dating? If I were you, I'd ask for my money back.
Look, believe whatever you wish about the shroud, but if you don't want to bear false witness and misinform others, as well as give critics of FreeRepublic reasons to reinforce the negative stereotype of conservatives as unschooled anti-scientific thumpers, I'm going to have to ask you to either actually learn some science before you spew another great load of nonsense about it, or at least become aware of just how much you don't know about a topic and temper your "pronouncements" accordingly.
And wherever you've been getting your "information", you need to be aware that it's as inaccurate and unreliable as a Michael Moore movie. Please seek out more accurate sources.
While I agree with your assessment of Schafersman's paper, the fire of 1532 had very little to do with the spurious C-14 dating done in 1988. Any fire that may leave soot with a different provenance of the carbon in the original article would have little effect on the dating unless the soot far outweighed the original material... to sway the dating of the shroud from a putative 1st Century to a 13th Century date, soot from the 1532 fire would have to represent about 60% of the tested sample. This simply was not the case.
The Quality and Accuracy of the C-14 tests and the Sampling Error
As a matter of fact, the quality of the tests was first rate and returned accurate dates... for what they tested. What the AMS C14 method tested was a set of four sub-samples cut from a single sample cut from a corner of the shroud that had been previously repaired... both visibly and invisibly. The sample taker avoided taking the obvious repair, but unfortunately cut the primary sample from an area that had been rewoven in the 16th Century. The resultant sample was therefore a mixture of original shroud material contaminated by newer linen skillfully rewoven to "restore" an area damaged from handling. Looking at the C-14 master sample before it was cut into five sub-samples for test, with the bottom of the sample being the edge of the shroud, the left hand side is "newer" linen of a patch, while the right hand side is the original linen of the shroud. Between the two sides is an area of interwoven old and new threads... the junction of the two materials where the reweaving was done. This junction runs at a slight diagonal of right to left from the bottom of the sample with the bottom having about an approximate 60% - 40% patch to shroud ratio and the top having just the opposite, an approximate 40% - 60% patch to shroud ratio.
This master sample was cut crosswise into five approximately equal sub-samples. Four of these, the two on each end, were distributed to the various C14 labs. The Arizona Lab got the two end pieces... the ones with the greatest ratio discrepencies... while the Oxford and Zurich labs got one piece each, and the middle piece was retained for future reference. This distribution of the sub-samples is important because it explains a major "red-flag" that should have been noticed by the controlling organization when the test results were returned.
The Red Flag
The "red-flag" was that the four tested samples reported FOUR distinct date ranges that combined spanned 180 years. Remember that the Arizona lab got the sub-samples from either end of the master sample, the ones with the most extreme mixtures either way. The one with the ~60%-40% patch to shroud ratio returned a date of 1397 CE (+/-30 years) while the sub-patch with the opposite mix (40-60) came up with a date of 1257 CE (+/-30 years). Note that even at the extreme range of either sample, the other does not overlap the degree of confidence. In other words, the youngest reported sub-sample could have originated in 1367 but the oldest sub-sample could have originated in 1287... and BOTH were cut from the same master sample that SHOULD report exactly the same date if it were homogenous! IF this dating were correct and accurate, then we have to believe that one end of a three inch sample was woven with linen that was at least 80 years older than the other end. That is mightly slow weaving.
The other two labs that got one sub-sample each... a sub-sample that was cut from either side of the retained center sub-sample. These apparently had linen mixture ratios of approximately 45% - 55% and 55% - 45% new to old respectively... and the reported dates are proportionally distributed between the extreme dates from the Arizona lab and show a correlation to the approximate material mixtures.
What is seldom reported is that the labs cut their sub-samples crosswise into four sub-sub-samples... and these sub-sub-samples ALSO demostrate the changes in dating. The farther away from the original edge... and the more original material included in each sample, the OLDER the reported date.
If the original sample had been homogenous, composed of linen that was grown, cut, spun, retted, and woven at the same time, the reported dates would have been much closer together (within the degree of confidence of each). As it is, the likely hood that the sample IS homogenous when statistically analysed is calculated to be only 13 in 1000.
Examination and Comparison of the Raes samples taken from the same area.
An earlier sample was taken from the same area as the 1988 C14 sample... now called the Raes Sample, threads of which are available for scientific study. Cut from the area immediately to the left of and adjacent to the 1988 sample, the Raes sample is now considered to be 100% patch linen. The Raes sample threads have been demonstrated to not be chemically identical to the main body threads. They are however consistent with the left hand portion of the 1988 sample.
Physical Examination of the remaining 1988 Sub-sample
An examination of the remaining middle sub-sample demonstrates the angled juncture of old to new... chemical tests of either side of the junction demonstrate that they are NOT THE SAME... microphotographic evidence shows the "patched" side has a Z twist while the unpatched original material has an S twist... average thread sizes are slightly smaller on the patch side compared to the shroud side... the patch has been dyed, the original has not... the retting processes have left different residues on the two sides.
Calculation of possible age of the original material?
So, exactly how old is the orginal material, assuming an origination date of approximately 1530 - 1560 for the repair/restoration linen? A C14 technician, using the observed ratios, calculated the original material had to be 1st century +/- 100 years for the observed contamination of 16th century material to report a 13 -14th century provenance.
AS you can see, we do not have to postulate any bioplastic coating, invading carbon soot from a fire, magical transformation of the isotopic content of the linen from exposure to miraculous events, or even large numbers of bacteria living and excreting on the shroud, to explain the spurious C14 dating. It all is explicable when we KNOW the sample was flawed... and it was flawed because the "scientists" who took the sample decided to ignore the recommended protocol.
There IS some blame to be attached to the three C14 labs because the agreed and abandoned protocol required that the samples should have been chemically tested before being destroyed in the C14 test. They were not. Had the test been done, the non-homogeneity of the samples would have been apparent before they were tested and the sampling error discovered.