[spinestein]

It is logically impossible to "disprove" a miracle, which is what the supporters of the shroud claim.

According to this theory, the Shroud of Turin was created by the miraculous light of Jesus' resurrection upon his burial shroud making an image of Jesus so exact that it is beyond the ability of artists to duplicate.

Consider the implications of trying to prove or disprove this.

If one could demonstrate a way to duplicate the result using techniques available to those in the past, then that would NOT be proof that the miracle didn't happen, just that there is a plausible alternative.

If there is no known alternative, then that also doesn't prove anything because it assumes that just because an alternative isn't known doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, researchers have radiocarbon dated the shroud and put the age of the cloth at much younger than the time of Jesus. This is, of course, irrelevant to believers in the miracle because of the axiom; it is "impossible" to disprove a miracle. It is always possible to find ways to negate the disproof by saying that "the scientists are wrong" or "the scientists are biased" or "the proof itself is unscientific".

Also, if you use the scientific method to try to "prove" a miracle that gets you nowhere because an intrinsic definition of science is that it is only applicable to naturally occurring events. To try to use it to prove that the Shroud of Turin is miraculous is to render the proof itself meaningless.

It is never useful (or appreciated by anyone) when religious faith mixes with the scientific method.

[Swordmaker]

On the other hand, researchers have radiocarbon dated the shroud and put the age of the cloth at much younger than the time of Jesus. This is, of course, irrelevant to believers in the miracle because of the axiom; it is "impossible" to disprove a miracle. It is always possible to find ways to negate the disproof by saying that "the scientists are wrong" or "the scientists are biased" or "the proof itself is unscientific".

On the other hand it is extremely easy to prove that what was carbon dated was NOT exemplary of the subject. It has now been CONCLUSIVELY PROVED that the C14 sample taken in 1988 that produced an age varying from 1260 to 1390, was taken from an area that had been rewoven in the mid-16th Century with mid-16th Century linen. The sample is chemically DIFFERENT from the rest of the shroud. As a result the C14 tests you cite are now considered completely invalid.

In other words, the C14 tests reported perfectly valid dates for a sample that included a mixture of "new" and "old" linen. It did not report a valid date for the body of the shroud...