Posted on 03/26/2013 8:14:48 PM PDT by NYer
It has as much value as if they dated an old tennis shoe found in the vicinity of the Shroud and merely claimed that the mere proximity of that shoe to the shroud is sufficient to date the Shroud. It matters not that this piece of material had been sewn into the Shroud, it was still neither homogenous or contemporaneous with the main body of what the labs were told they were going to be dating.
You are beating a dead horse. . . and you show your absolutely closed minded position in your trolling behavior. A true scientist tosses out falsified data and moves on, a pseudo-scientist prefers the false data because it validates his prejudice.
Sorry you don’t like it, but it’s not just me.
” Jump to: navigation, search
The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth commonly associated with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable of which is radiocarbon dating, in an attempt to determine the relic’s authenticity. In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390CE, which coincides with the first appearance of the shroud in France in the 1350s.[1]
These results are generally accepted by the scientific community. This dating has been questioned by some, and doubts have been raised in particular regarding the representivity of the sample that was taken for testing. The various alternative hypotheses have all been refuted by scientists.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
How do you explain this?
“Leading STURP scientist Dr John Jackson further discounted the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. This could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.”
Troll.
I can't even say in all honesty, as I would normally, "Nice try though" as you don't even reach the level of FAIL.
Cheers!
These results are generally accepted by the scientific community
As is Global Warming, Eric uh Global Cooling, ur uh, Climate .
You know how Wikipedia works, right? You are able to edit it and post information to correct inaccuracies. Why don’t you go ahead and do that and enlighten the world on this particular topic?
It'd be nice to find someone who opposes the authenticity of the Shroud who has an IQ above the low 30s, though; and who holds and practices the same critical skepticism towards debunkers of the Shroud as they do towards others.
Not holding my breath, though.
I'll send liver.
Cheers!
What does Global Warming have to do with the Shroud? Why don’t you drag Bigfoot and UFOs into the argument as well, while your’e at it?
“you’re at it” <- fat-fingered it
If God chose to not burry Moses’ body where Israel would have then worshiped the site/body, why would He then choose to take a 1st Century “photograph” of His Son... which would then set up yet another idol to worship, instead of worshiping Jesus Himself?
A couple of observations - the shroud has now been dated to what is essentially a 500+ year window of time - with 33AD at the “midpoint”. Interesting.
But lets just assume that the shroud indeed is an authentic burial shroud from the first half of the 1st Century- what evidence is there that this is actually the shroud of Jesus? It isn’t as if crucifixion was particularly rare at that time.
And something that is particularly odd - the shroud image sure looks more european in appearance - which doesn’t really make sense with scripture that indicates that there was nothing remarkable about Christ’s appearance - and by His lineage, he more than likely would have looked far less “European” and far more like a medium-dark skinned middle-eastern/semitic person.
But ultimately - what it comes down to is faith. I don’t buy the “pure faith” vs. reasoned faith argument. Scripture simply identifies “faith”, which is a gift from God as the key to salvation.
I trust and believe in Jesus Christ who died and rose again, and who sits at the right hand of the Father today making intercession. We have scripture as all the necessary evidence. And we have the risen Savior as our object of worship, not a piece of fabric or a tomb, or other material things.
Not a thing but it sure speaks volumes about all those scientist that are in agreement.
Carbon dating is about half right, but testing a thread or two from a cloth that has been handled by so many people we have no clue what may have been imbedded in the cloth.
Forget when it was made just show how it was made, I have no opinion of the history of the shroud except the mystery of the how.
Find the DATE when Dr. Jackson "discounted" that possibility. Dr. Jackson was citing the science as it existed as of that date he spoke those words. The "patches" he was thinking of would have been sewn in patches with obvious edges, not the skillful invisibly rewoven, hand dyed to match, patch done in "French Invisible Reweaving."
You will find that he had other STURP members in agreement with him, including one Raymond N. Rogers, who decided to falsify the hypothesis with what he thought would be definitive proof. He was absolutely shocked when his test confirmed the hypothesis rather than falsifying it! He submitted his findings for peer-review and his work was confirmed, then published. Two other scientists, also intending to FALSIFY the hypothesis, independently found that their approached, not the same as Rogers' approach, ALSO confirmed the hypothesis. Two leading statisticians, also working independently, demonstrated conclusively by mathematical means that the sample itself was NOT homogenous itself from one sub-sample to another sufficient to be considered a non-compromised source material made of a single provenance dated source.
That's FIVE (5) peer-reviewed published works, anyone of which is sufficient, to any serious scientist, to falsify any date recovered from testing those samples.
As to using Wikipedia as a authoritative source, the fact have been edited in numerous times, and with hours, replaced with the falsified or mealy mouthed data.
Sorry, I didn’t see in your post where you posted the links to the five peer-reviewed journal articles. Would you please post the links?
Dino, I posted you a link to a site FILLED with peer reviewed journal articles. It's obvious you didn't bother to go look. You just have to look. I'm done with you and this thread. You are a troll.
Do your own searches there... I am not going to do it for you. Stay away from the non-peer reviewed skeptic sites. They just a junk science from people like Nickell with his degree in English Lit. Worthless.
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.