Posted on 04/10/2009 4:24:42 PM PDT by GOPGuide
God doesn’t need special effects.
btt
Wow. If I remember correctly, Rogers was a pretty hard-core shroud skeptic.
The shroud is conclusively not a painted image and has properties that could not have been known in Medieval times. So if it is a Medieval fake how was it made?
...and Happy Good Friday.
...countdown to Guinness and chocolate has BEGUN.
Cheers!
Either extraneous contamination, or "chain-of-custody" will do.
And the Shroud has neither one -- it was around for hundreds of years before anyone radiocarbon tested it.
Cheers!
...and Happy Good Friday.
Not necessarily -- God or the Devil could've fudged the data in the latter case.
But people don't like to open that can of worms for a whole variety of reasons.
Cheers!
...oh, and Happy Easter.
It really doesn’t matter to me whether or not the shroud is a fake - I believe Jesus Christ died and rose again. A burial cloth is irrelevant to my faith.
Happy Easter, everyone!
Thanks for the ping! And a Happy Good Friday to you!
Rock is not carbon dated. C14 has a half life of about 6000 years; radioisotope dating is mostly accurate within the first 6 or so half lifes (~36,000 years for C14). Also, you have to remember, that even if the volcano erupted 200 years ago, the rock that emerged is as old as the earth.
Yes, he was, but he was also a real scientist, who was willing to look at the evidence, and the data, and open his mind to a different conclusion than the one he'd drawn from the 1988 test results.
We saw this show last year, and it was excellent!
the question is, does it matter if it was a medievel fake or two thousand years old, who is to say that it really is the visage of christ?
As old as the earth? Why stop there? We’re talking formerly molten lava, here. I though argon was supposed to be the problem, making it look “too old.”
|
Thx!
You are not remembering correctly. Raymond N. Rogers was a member of STURP and a real scientist. What he stated was that when the C14 tests reported ages of 1260-1390, he accepted the findings. He was not hard core as a skeptic and many of the discoveries about the chemistry on the Shroud are his. He was a stickler when it came to the various theories about WHY the C14 tests were wrong (as was I) and would vigorously point out the failings in critiques of the various theories propounded.
He THOUGHT he would be able to experimentally prove that the two scholars, Susan Benford and Joseph Marino, non-scientists, were wrong about their theory of a medieval invisible patch in the sampled area. His tests proved just the opposite of what he thought he would prove. He proved that although the main body of the Shroud is made of Linen from the Flax plant, the area tested was a mixture of original Linen and COTTON dyed to match the original cloth.
“Ask them about integrity of the sample.”
Agreed. Belief in the Shroud as the burial shroud of Jesus is just that — belief.
But so is evolution, because it has all the same problems you mentioned.
By "integrity of the sample" I was referring to contamination of the Shroud during the many years before it was available for radiocarbon dating; and various incidents during its lifetime, such as its being boiled in oil (IIRC) by folks hundreds of years ago to try to remove the image.
Such things do not make for good forensics -- the oil may have removed some of the Jerusalem area pollens, making the evidentiary nature of the pollen's presence easier to challenge by those with an agenda.
Cheers!
Thank you ping. It just takes time, the more we learn the more real is the Shroud.
.
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.