[LMB] OT: Evolution, WAS verging on forbidden territory: GOP attitudes about science
bearmaster0 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 17:48:21 BST 2011
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:00 AM, JenL <jenl1625 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This got me interested enough to go back and look at a few of those links.
> Apparently, a few years back, someone advanced further (reasonably
> significant) evidence for the argument that the location all three samples
> were taken from (one corner of the shroud) was actually a "patch" that was
> added to fix the effects of wear accumulated over the years. Which means,
> arguably, that the samples were accurately carbon-dated yet not
> representative of the rest of the cloth.
> A few years back, someone apparently came up with a way to carbon-date
> entire objects without damage to them (by placing them in a specific gas
> a while, then dating the gas). That could theoretically be used to
> carbon-date the entire shroud without damaging it, but it's not like the
> folks in control of the shroud are going to believe that easily...
As I recall, experts in the field were responsible for securing the
sample. The Shroud was removed from its backing cloth, examined, one or
more sampling areas agreed upon, and in consolidation with the shroud's
custodians that one was chosen. No one objected at the time.
So the "patch" hypothesis, put forward by someone who has never been allowed
to examine the Shroud, is that experts in their field, knowing the world was
watching over their shoulders and their reputations were on the line, failed
to recognize a patch or re-weaving.
I'm skeptical, but that one can be tested through non-destructive
examination of the Shroud, which has not been allowed for that purpose.
IIRC the gas does not involve COMPLETELY destroying the sample, but does
remove atoms more evenly from the entire artifact. As the mechanism that
caused the image is unknown, subjecting the Shroud to that process seems,
Current position of the Church seems to be that it is of Medieval origin,
but was never intended as a fraud.
An animated controversy followed and it must be admitted that though the
immense preponderance of opinion among learned
statement by P.M. Baumgarten in the "Historiches Jahrbuch", 1903,
pp. 319-43) was adverse to the authenticity of the
still the violence <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15446a.htm> of many of
its assailants prejudiced their own cause. In particular the suggestion made
of blundering or bad faith <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm> on
the part of those who photographed were quite without excuse. From the
scientific point of view, however, the difficulty of the "negative"
impression on the cloth is not so serious as it seems. This Shroud like the
others was probably painted <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11395a.htm>without
fraudulent <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06249a.htm> intent to aid the
dramatic setting of the Easter
Dic nobis Maria, quid vidisti in via
Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes.
As the word *sudarium* suggested, it was
painted<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11395a.htm>to represent the
impression made by the sweat of
Christ <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm>, i.e. probably in a
yellowish tint upon unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in
the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of
fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the
shadow of Paleotto's reproduction of the images on the shroud is printed in
two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and æsthetic
effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the
artist used a model to determine the length and position of the limbs, etc.;
the representation no doubt <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm> was
made exactly life size. Secondly, the impressions are only known to us in
photographs so reduced, as compared with the original, that the crudenesses,
aided by the softening effects of time, entirely disappear.
Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the
fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so
vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly
recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an
authentic relic <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm>
dating<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04636c.htm>from the year A.D.
30, why should it have retained its brilliance through
countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in
four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be
a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should
More information about the Lois-Bujold