New study says the Shroud of Turin carbon dating was "willfully contaminated" by atheists.Thoughts?

Question

Just as the carbon dating results of the Shroud came in to the 13th-14th century, an ancient Egyptian cloth came in with the dates of 0-50 AD (and it was thousands of years old), and this was all at the same lab, a 3rd sample of another cloth came in with the dates of 2000 B.C. The old switcheroo?

"Denis Dutton, of the Canterbury Fine Arts, a determined opponent of the authenticity of the Holy Shroud, was worried in May 1987: "It would not do if it were possible to suspect, for example, that linen fibres from a mummy had been sent to the laboratories, instead and in place of real samples from the shroud." Tite's answer was that he was able to take care of that!

It did not even enter Dutton's mind that the reverse might be suspected: the premeditation of a perfect crime, consisting in reversing the samples and thus burying the Holy Shroud beneath the label of a "linen associated" with a " Cleopatra’s mummy", dating from the first century. Yet such was Dr. Tite's plan"

http://www.crc-internet.org/1401-ii-the-conclusion-of-a-new-trial.html

Answer 1

It is a fake anyway so what difference does it make?

Answer 2

The thirteenth century is composed of an ungainly blip interior the radiocarbon curve. There are worse ones extra back in time alongside with 1000bc. it particularly is been a thorn interior the part of many an early center a while analysis. regrettably the shroud looks to have been synthetic (or a minimum of repaired) at approximately this element. The restore artwork is everywhere in the shroud so it is not worry-free to steer away from it. The early carbon dating machines necessary a great volume of cloth jointly as modern-day machines use lots much less. that's first a difficulty simply by fact it necessary to consume a great style of the shroud, yet additionally simply by fact the possibility to take up impurities is a lot greater the extra textile you incinerate. The shroud become created between the twelfth and 14th century, although a precise date will in all probability be illusive. to respond to your question definite an infection can exchange your date, tremendously on fabric. even though it ought to be rather devastating soiling. some finger marks will make little discernable distinction. although radiocarbon operators are not dumb, they understand the place an infection is in all probability to ensue and the thank you to minimise it. (lots time could be spent scraping microscopic fibres with sterile tactics then washing with acidic products) they might additionally spot an misguided effect a mile off. They by no ability in many circumstances have confidence a single examining. in many circumstances different samples are taken from different areas (recently meaning in user-friendly terms a gram of cloth) to evaluate against one yet another, or maybe then, an blunders proportion is back alongside with the effect. the blunders proportion could be extensive if an infection is suspected.

Answer 3

Main cloth? It's ONE cloth that's 14' long. Which contradicts the biblical event of being wrapped in linens (plural) which was common back then as no one could afford linen that big. It was usually rags they used - remember he was a criminal to the Roman Empire (or they wouldn't have crucified him - they would have simply killed him in the streets) Crucifixion was reserved for traitors to Rome.



Next problem - the only thing a single new test has done is made the claim that it's likely to have come from that Era. That doesn't mean much. For all anyone knows that could have been someones uncle george who betrayed a local official.





"Many experts have stood by a 1988 carbon-14 dating of scraps of the cloth carried out by labs in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona that dated it from 1260 to 1390, which, of course, would rule out its used during the time of Christ.



The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.



It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported. The cloth has been kept at the cathedral since 1578."



Not a thing about "atheists" doing anything to it.



You have got to be one of the biggest liars in here. I'm pretty sure it says something about "bearing false witness" in the supposed holy book that was given from your god.

Answer 4

Um, a date of "0-50 AD" would mean something IS thousands of years old. 0-50 ad was 2000-1963 years ago, genius.



And what you pointed to was not a "study." It's speculation. You should learn the difference.

Yes, I know you're so desperate to "prove" your shroud isn't a middle-ages fake that you're willing (along with lots of other people) to lie about it, and make up unsupportable stories about atheist trickery. But such nonsense only convinces people who already irrationally believe in nonsense, not rational people.

Answer 5

I love the way religious folk laud carbon dating when they claim it backs their myth but claim it is inaccurate when it dates dinosaurs and other artifacts to before their the date they claim their God created this earth.



The shroud was given to laboratories in three different countries by the Archbishop of Turin, Pontifical Custodian of the shroud; and now that it doesn't fit what Theists want it to they claim a conspiracy.



It's like with the Bible: start out with a premise and stick to it despite evidence to the contrary.

Answer 6

What is it with you people and your obsession with the Shroud of Turin? Isn't Christianity supposed to be a faith-based religion? As far as the Gospels are concerned, Christ would be more pleased with a person who just believed in his resurrection right off the bat than have to see a cloth to believe it.

Answer 7

actually i was wondering how many painings have been destroyed by someone who didnt know or at such time didnt have the proper way to preseave said item, this destroying its original nature by attempting to presearve such as paint or not recording a patch had placed to fix it, of no wrong to them surley no one thsn questioned its authenticity and intended to do good to presearve it.

Answer 8

There are other reasons to suspect the shroud is a fake other than the carbon dating.

Answer 9

Oh no, they're on to us! Quick, hide the Holy Grail and prepare the rabbit cannons!

Answer 10

And you think a christian site is valid, how very fundie of you.

Answer 11

Its a cloth, who cares. Even if its the real thing that covered Jesus, its still just a piece of cloth............>