Posted on 03/04/2004 2:19:56 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
While some carbon from exterior sources may have contaminated the cloth, it could not have been in sufficient amounts to skew the carbon dating.
The reason the carbon dating is off is that the sample itself was composed of between 45- 60%15-16th century linen from a repair that is obvious in micrographs of the area sampled. The percentage of original thread to replaced thread depended on which piece of the sample each lab got as the boundary between original to replaced thread ran diagonally through the original clipped sample!
In fact the sample ages reported by the three labs shows this change in percentage as the labs reported ages that were wildly variant between the labs with the oldest age (plus margin of error) being outside of the youngest age and ITS margin of error. The sample testing at the youngest age had the largest percentage of newer material while the oldest had the lowest percentage of newer material.
Yes.
If we are made in the image of God ....
Are we snapshot negatives of him ?..
And does displaying/teaching the gospel by us to others produce positive copies until the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of the copies converts them into negatives too ?..
Thereby making shroud an archetype of that process.
Unfortunately, Dentist, the carbon14 tests, which were done by three seperate labs, were done on four pieces taken from the single sample taken from only ONE area of the shroud... one which the creators of the protocol specifically excluded... instead of the SEVEN areas the original protocol required.
The Arizona lab got TWO pieces, the other labs got one each. Strangely the piece that tested youngest and the piece that tested oldest BOTH were sent to Arizona... and the results for one were outside the extreme limits of the other. This would not be the case if the materials were the same age... or composed of the same ratios of replaced material to original material.
Since we can look at magnifications of photographs of the original sample (destroyed in the C14 testing) and estimate the percentage of "invisibly rewoven linen" from the obvious change of thread twist, we can make a stab at calculating the age of the original material. That calculation comes out to 1st century plus or minus 100 years (large margin of error because of the estimation of percentage). The ideal solution is to repeat the C14 tests using material that is certain to be original shroud and not a repair. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has not authorized another test.
I have heard that an unauthorized C-14 test on a thread taken from Max Frei's sticky tape samples WAS done and the results pointed to a date in the First Century. Because it was not authorized, it cannot be published or peer reviewed so the results are not to be considered "valid."
Correct. The image was absolutely NOT painted on. That has been completely discredited. The image has been shown to experienced radiologists who almost immediately recognized it as an x-ray image seemingly produced by an instantaneous, intense burst of radiation.
Even if it's fake, the person who created it was an artistic genius who knew everything there was to know about a crucifixion.
Not only that, but this increasingly-unlikely "artist" also knew a whole lot about ancient Jewish burial customs (re: Jesus' eyes on the Shroud).
Many people with IQs a whole lot higher than mine have studied this artifact VERY closely and are all but ready to declare without a doubt, publically, that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine article.
The main issue for me is that I don't need the shroud to be legit to validate my faith, yet it seems that many place that much emphasis upon it.
It also matches the blood on the Soudarium of Oviedo... which has been in Oviedo, Spain, since the sixth century... and the wound patterns match as well.
Well there you go... LoL
Far too much reliance is placed on this flawed testing method. Carbon dating has even dated live mollusks at 3000 years dead too.
It has to be one of the worst tools available to scientists today to speculatively-date anything. The dating technique relies on the wholly undocumentable assumption that atmospheric and environmental conditions in which the tested object has existed have remained consistent since the death of the organism. Exposure to smoke is only one of the more obvious atmospheric changes to which the shroud has been exposed.
Likewise a baseline for the inherent radio-carbon which is supposed to be associated with the object is also only founded upon assumptions. It cannot be determined by anything approaching credible, hard radio-carbon baseline evidence.
You are perhaps a bit too new to FR to understand what is meant when one refers to a poster on FR as wearing a tin-foil hat.
Where, exactly, am I wrong, and what evidence can you provide that I am?
do some research...
I've done a great deal of research on this topic, thank you.
you will be SHOCKED...or is that what you are AFRAID of?????
I'm hardly "AFRAID", but I do admit to being "SHOCKED" by the way that some of the more prominent shroud proponents have misrepresented the results of the scientific tests in order to misleadingly make them appear more supportive of the shroud's allged "authenticity" than they really are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.