Shroud of Turin

coasttocoastam.com ^ | april-17-2003 | Mark Antonacci

[green team 1999]

Shroud of Turin

Tonight's guest Mark Antonacci will present evidence about the controversial Shroud.

Mark Antonacci , author of Resurrection of the Shroud, says new tests will prove that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

He also claims that scientific tests can be performed on the Shroud, on blood, pollen, and cloth samples that refute the cloth’s controversial carbon dating.

turn your radios on,at coast to coast tonight 10pm to 2am some stations repeat show until 5am.

[Muleteam1]

Should be interesting. I saw the Shroud at the 1984 World's Fair at New Orleans.

Muleteam1

[green team 1999]

link for tonight guest website>

[green team 1999]

traffic is allready heavy at guest website,it might crash,not the first time listeners jam a website.

[Fraulein]

Last night's show was very good. The woman from the night before, however, was just awful. Anyway, tuning in now...

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Tall_Texan]

I thrink the shroud has been thoroughly debunked. It's an interesting item no doubt but it's dubious authenticity does nothing to prove or disprove the historical record of Jesus, nor of His resurrection.

You can still be a confident born-again, Bible-believing Christian without the Shroud of Turin.

If you need the Shroud to reinforce your faith, your faith isn't very solid to begin with.

[american colleen]

thanks! bump for the Shroud. Great book, btw The Resurrection of the Shroud

[green team 1999]

well,i get to listen to the show for enterteinment,but is a good subject for tonight.

[Romulus]

I saw the Shroud at the 1984 World's Fair at New Orleans.

Must've been a private showing. ;-)

Seriously, if the Shroud has been outside Turin ever in modern times, I'm not aware of it. I've lived in New Orleans all my life. The Vatican's exhibition at the 1984 fair was very nice, but when you consider even New York in 1964-65 only rated Michelangelo's Pietá, there's no way we'd ever get the Shroud, short of commissioning some Baghdad museum looters to snatch it for us.

[Romulus]

If you need the Shroud to reinforce your faith, your faith isn't very solid to begin with.

One could say the same about the Bible.

[First Amendment]

I thrink the shroud has been thoroughly debunked.

(I know you mean "think"!) From what I have read, the main debunking is because of carbon 14 dating or whatever kind they use. There's a very interesting book "Forbidden Archeology/Hidden History of the Human Race" that goes into dating methods and their innacuracies. Apparently those radiocative methods of dating are ultra sensitive (lots of variables can screw them up) and not very reliable.

[EternalHope]

I think the shroud has been thoroughly debunked.

Why do you say that?

The carbon 14 dating cast doubt for several years, but the results are now much better understood. They could even be said to confirm a date in the first century.

I agree with your comment about the shroud not being necessary to faith, but I still think it is absolutely fascinating.

[Dataman]

One could say the same about the Bible.

Or any external evidence for that matter.

[Radioactive]

I thrink the shroud has been thoroughly debunked. It's an interesting item no doubt but it's dubious authenticity does nothing to prove or disprove the historical record of Jesus, nor of His resurrection.

I thrink? It has not been debunked. You are mistaken. The scientific evidence is not all in yet. The process in which this shroud has been created has not been able to be duplicated even with today's advanced technology.

There has been much study on this and so far, no one has been able to agree on how this thing was made.

Most people do not depend on the shroud to reinforce their faith.

It's just good to know that there is some evidence that what was written is true.

[green team 1999]

Graham Hancock website i think he wrote the book or is in the same field.

[Radioactive]

Exactly.

I once read a report that had a scientist date a recently killed seal rib bone as being 5 thousand years old.

[Dataman]

I thrink the shroud has been thoroughly debunked.

Thoroughly? No opponent can explain it or reproduce it. The only thing they have going for them is a controversial dating method with which there is not unanimity.

[Blunderfromdownunder]

Radiocarbondating cannot be used to date anything that was alive more recently than about 1750 AD (which includes your seal bone). The major reason for this cutoff is the vast increase and fluctuation in atmospheric carbon since the industrial revolution, along with more recent atomic/nucelar missile tests. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has always fluctuated but can be accounted for (radiocarbon calibration) by dating known-age items (eg wood from long-lived tree species whose age can be detrmined accurately using dendrochronology or tree-ring dating) and noting the offset between the dates. Scientists have created several "calibration curves" that can be used in this manner, but sadly there are far two many wiggles in the curve beyond about 300 years ago for the technique to be used reliably. OTOH anything from 300-10,000 years ago can be calibrated fairly accurately and beyond 10,000 years, to within centuries (the 10,000 year point is where scientists run out of samples of old wood to create their calibration curves).

[jennyp]

I once read a report that had a scientist date a recently killed seal rib bone as being 5 thousand years old.

Dating organisms that feed on things at the bottom of the sea (or that feed on things that eat the things at the bottom of the sea) is problematic, because the carbon in those bottom-dwellers did not come from the atmosphere. C-14 dating is based on the fact that a certain amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere gets zapped by cosmic rays, thus turning its C into radioactive C-14 instead of the normal C-12. That's also where the popular creationist story of the live mollusk whose shell was dated as being millions of years old (or somesuch) came from.