The Shroud of Turin has never been dated. Some cotton cloth was dated. However that was a useless endeavor.
COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15, 2008 — "In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair.""LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory."
Did you not notice my /s?
The Atheists want to argue that this could be readily done in the 13th century ~ even though we have ONLY ONE ITEM like it from that time (when it really did exist ~ right? This thing was around in the 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, and even the 1900s). Medieval people were not familiar with photographic techniques or photos.
A similar argument has been made for the Koran ~ that it was written in Classical Arabic. Not only that, it was the first book done in that tongue. The problem is with the second book ~ that didn't happen for another 125 years.
Nope, it's improbable that the Koran was written in Arabic ~ that written language didn't exist for another century or so.
Here it's highly improbable for the Shroud of Turin to have been created in the Middle Ages, and even if the Atheists could come up with a perfect duplication using common household ingredients of the time, WHERE IS THE SECOND ONE!
The moment the first photographer created the first photograph he immediately set about creating the SECOND PHOTOGRAPH!
He didn't wait another 700 years to create the second picture!
Sue Benford died a few months ago........a real tragedy; a great loss. An incredibly talented “amateur” researcher. Ray Rogers picked up on her work on “invisible weaving” and wrote THE definitive paper on this prior to his death.
The C-14 testing was flawed from top to bottom for a simple reason: they tested fibrils from a rewoven portion of the Shroud. Microscopic photography makes this so obvious, as well.