[quote=mauserand9mm][quote=TF49]
....
That's a bit rich. The shroud came with no certificates, but you are okay with that, or even mention in the bible - you'd think that would add more credibility to the tale. The bible even says that Jesus was covered in strips of linen, with a separate cloth only covering his face, which would be normal for a Jewish burial at the time. Nothing about a bed sheet.
Apologetics can do wonders , turn strips into a sheet and turn Paul into a murderer
when scripture makes no such claim.
It's what Xtians call the holy spirit at work..😂
TF49 is like that William Lane Craig apologist ,
both clam that g0d 'talks' to them.
You and Mman are quite a bit alike. Both of you missed the point….. or maybe you two just dummy up or attempt to divert to some other topic when your postings are shown to be deficient. Both of you just did that.
A signal of retreat.
So, both of you…. Tell me why this spurious doc falsely attributed to Pierre dArcy should be given any mention at all?
There is little question among those familiar with the topic that the biggest mistake ever made in carbon 14 dating was the Shroud of Turin.
Sadly, this mistake will be understood by some as meaning that carbon 14 dating is prone to error, subject to unexplainable anomalies or plagued by problems of contamination; none of which is true.
Let's be perfectly clear: carbon 14 dating is an excellent and very accurate scientific method for determining the age of many things as old as 50,000 years.
The failure to obtain a reliable date for the Shroud of Turin is not about flaws in carbon 14 dating methods or contamination. It is not about the problems, so often discussed in the media, of mysterious biological polymers growing on the cloth's fibers or new carbon introduced into the Shroud's cloth by a scorching fire in 1532.
It is not about the sloppy work by three very prestigious carbon 14 dating laboratories. And it is not, as some suggest, about conspiracies dreamed up to prove religious or anti-religious arguments (the Shroud is a religious object for some).
It is about a stupid mistake...Let me illustrate: Recently I sent a soil sample to a testing laboratory to find out why my lawn was doing so poorly. The lab reported back that the soil was perfect for grass. It had the right nutrients and the pH was right on target, neither too acidic or alkaline. I didn't think so. What had gone wrong?
It turns out that a few weeks earlier I had repaired a spot in my lawn where my dog had peed and killed the grass. I dug out a small section of soil and filled the hole with loam I had purchased from a garden supply store. Without realizing it, I had taken a sample for testing from that repaired area. The sample was not representative of my lawn. It was chemically unlike the rest of my lawn. The lab had perfectly analyzed an invalid sample.
Similarly, as we now know, from National Geographic News, PBS and several scientific papers, that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was done with an invalid sample.
M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino, with the help of several textile experts, undertook a detailed examination of the documentation photographs of the carbon 14 samples and identified clear indications of a medieval patch.
Independently, Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education has examined actual threads and fibers adjacent to where the samples were snipped. In a paper he published with Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan, Rogers reported finding indisputable chemical evidence of a repair patch. He found dyestuff and spliced threads. Others, using scanning electronic microscopes and advanced spectral analysis tools have confirmed his findings.
This mistake of using an invalid sample should not be allowed to tarnish the reputation of carbon 14 dating. Unfortunately, we live in a world of easy and careless polemics. There are some, as well, who because of religious convictions cannot accept the conclusions of carbon 14 dating. Scientists cannot properly challenge matters of faith on the basis of science alone. But it would be unfortunate if those who hold certain beliefs use an erroneous understanding about carbon 14 dating to challenge carbon 14 dating when it is not carbon 14 dating that is at fault.
The mistake must now be openly admitted in the interest of scientific integrity. It was a careless mistake, a stupid mistake, a foolish mistake.
Carbon 14 dating is an invaluable tool for archeology and science. The mistake made in dating the Shroud of Turin does not diminish this fact.
by Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi
