Megatron

This was the subject of a recent argument I had with a die-hard creationist. I know the argument itself is moldy and old, but it agitated me enough to bring it up here.

In <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html" target="_blank">this column</a>, the Straight Dope gives a very good synopsis on the Shroud, possibilities on its origins, and the results of various tests.

Creationists, however, say that many of these test results could be skewed by the miracle of Christ's resurrection.

To be specific, the carbon-14 dating is the most controversial, revealing the Shroud to be no older than about 740 years (made around 1260 AD at the earliest). The typical creationist argument here is that a miracle on the level of resurrection would disrupt the degradation of the cloth.

I'm no expert here, but how would this be a factor?

Supposing for a moment that the resurrection truly did happen, it happened over 1200 years before the date revealed by the test.

The only possible variation in the test I could see being caused, even by a miraculous resurrection, is that the Shroud could have been made many years prior to the death of Christ... and the test only revealing an age correlating with the time of his supposed resurrection. That could even possibly give credence to the christian belief.

But it doesn't, as the thing is shown by all known evidence to have been fabricated (yuk yuk) over 1200 years after his death.

Even a resurrection and all the possible (tangents, if you ask me) excuses for miracles can't make some piece of cloth sustain itself without any sort of degradation for 1200 years, much less without anyone noticing.

And speaking of noticing... where was this thing before they suddenly produced and displayed it in 1357? Just sitting around somewhere?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Zero Angel,
Your Creationist friends are being disingenuous to hide behind the fig leave that test results could be skewed by a miracle.

This is a form of special pleading as well as a circular argument. Here's how to handle them. Admit that anything is possible, but that we're only obliged to believe what is most probable. So why would it be probable that a miracle made material younger than it was? Can't answer it? Then you can't accept it.

For the record, I do believe in the miracle of the Shroud of Turin. I just don't believe in breaking the rules of logic to support that belief. -- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

MortalWombat

Which miracle would that be? The miracle that there are still people who think it's authentic?

hezekiah jones

You can't suck and blow at the same time.

Megatron

Apparently they aren't the only ones...

<strong> My thoughts exactly.

<strong> I could possibly believe it if the thing had turned up, say, 2000 years ago or so.

Even if it had been renewed by the resurrection, it would still date back to, say, 2000 years ago.

If the alleged resurrection had occured in 1350 AD (of course, if that were the case, then the year would be called something else, and not 1350 AD) then I could believe it, especially if the Shroud was known to have existed for years before said resurrection.

If the alleged resurrection would have caused the Shroud to delay in decomposition for over a thousand years, then the same would have existed for everything else around him, not just one piece of cloth. There would be other products of the "miracle" present as well, and all would date back to, say, about the time the Shroud dates back to, being between the mid 13th to mid 14th century.

I somehow doubt that Jesus would have really cared about one piece of cloth so much as to give it some kind of special immunity from entropy, but to not endow any other object present with the same immunity.

Personally, I think he was too busy being dead.

<strong> Nice self-contradicting statement. I suppose next comes the counter-argument based on circular logic?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Hezekiahjones,


You can if you're not referring to a singular orifice, the one on your face. That is, if we're talking about the orifices at both ends. But this is a digression regarding digestion, when the issue is your inability to digest the fact that I can believe in a miracle for reasons other than the illogical ones proposed.

Your incredulity is an argumentum ad logicam, the refutation of a conclusion simply because it was arrived at illogically.

So, for example, if I said the world was round because otherwise the tinfoil around my ankles couldn’t pick up the messages I hear in my head from the mother ship, would you doubt the world is round? Then don't doubt a miracle simply because a dumb person proposes a dumb reason to believe in it. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

donnerkeil

Oh goody, a talk about the Shroud of Turin! This is right up my alley.

Now, it is indeed true that the carbon-14 dating of the shroud indicated that the shroud had an age of approximately 800 years, however... it is not that cut and dry.

Studies performed by microbiologists, show that the shroud is covered by a "biofilm", a film which could significantly mask the true age of the shroud. Subsequently, a second round of C-14 testing is being performed not only on the shroud, but on items from similarly aged (and much earlier aged) artifacts to do a final comparison.

Is it possible that the shroud is a hoax? Yes.

But is it also possible that the shroud does date from ~30AD? Yes, it is still possible.

We'll have to wait and see.

lpetrich

I would not bet on a biofilm being very significant, because its mass would be much smaller than the mass of the biofilmless cloth. Meaning that it would have had little influence on the shroud's age.

However, skeptics like Joe Nickell have made a strong case for the Shroud of Turin being a medieval creation; we may put it alongside the Cloak of Kandahar, a cloak that Mohammed had supposedly worn that is kept in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

donnerkeil

<strong>I would not bet on a biofilm being very significant, because its mass would be much smaller than the mass of the biofilmless cloth. Meaning that it would have had little influence on the shroud's age.</strong>

According to the doctors who examined the shroud, the biofilm adds as much as 60% to the overall diameter of each fiber. That would most certainly have the potential of influencing the C-14 dating.

<strong>However, skeptics like Joe Nickell have made a strong case for the Shroud of Turin being a medieval creation; we may put it alongside the Cloak of Kandahar, a cloak that Mohammed had supposedly worn that is kept in Kandahar, Afghanistan.</strong>

And I've seen scientists say "Hey wait, it may not be as cut and dry as it was made out to be." and then give plausible reasons for further study. You can certainly write it off if you want, but I think that no damage is done if these further tests are allowed to proceed.

Anyways, as a theist, I would hardly use the Shroud for "evangelical" purposes anyways. If an atheist is going to "see the light" it's not going to be by presenting them with miraculous events. I believe I heard it said somewhere that "Miracles were for those who already believe."

I'm sure if the Shroud of Turin was examined further and given a new C-14 dating of ~30AD, the first thing that would happen would be that some people would cry "Best 2 out of 3!" and others would say that it's just a 1st century fake-ry, which would change nothing. If you said that the Shroud could convince you of the claims of Christianity if proven to date from the first century, I'd be floored.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: donnerkeil ]</p>

bgponder

To all,

IMO this is an excellent post by Donnerkeil; if there is more evidence to be considered, herehere, it is the only way we will get at the truth.

Peace and cornbread Barry