I am looking forward to reading the replies to this topic.
I myself am uncertain if it is real or a fake.
Iam no forensic expert(I do have a degree in law enforcement)
and I have read reports both saying its a fraud and genuine.
I think it is a faith issue.I was moved to hear that an atheist scientist
who had studied and examined the shroud with a very sceptical eye,
was convinced it was real,he then converted to xian.
Originally posted by aspviper666Please give the source for this reputed "atheist" scientist, please.
I am looking forward to reading the replies to this topic.
I myself am uncertain if it is real or a fake.
Iam no forensic expert(I do have a degree in law enforcement)
and I have read reports both saying its a fraud and genuine.
I think it is a faith issue.I was moved to hear that an atheist scientist
who had studied and examined the shroud with a very sceptical eye,
was convinced it was real,he then converted to xian.
Originally posted by aspviper666Fake. Carbon dated independently by three different labs to the 1300's.
I am looking forward to reading the replies to this topic.
I myself am uncertain if it is real or a fake.
Iam no forensic expert(I do have a degree in law enforcement)
and I have read reports both saying its a fraud and genuine.
I think it is a faith issue.I was moved to hear that an atheist scientist
who had studied and examined the shroud with a very sceptical eye,
was convinced it was real,he then converted to xian.
Originally posted by aspviper666If the shroud turns out to be a genuine relic from the time of the Roman occupation of the Middle East, so what? How is it going to be positively identified as the burial shroud of someone named Jesus, and even if it was, so what? How does a piece of cloth bolster the claim that Jesus rose from the dead? It's presented as a burial shroud, something used to cover the dead.
I am looking forward to reading the replies to this topic.
I myself am uncertain if it is real or a fake.
Iam no forensic expert(I do have a degree in law enforcement)
and I have read reports both saying its a fraud and genuine.
I think it is a faith issue.I was moved to hear that an atheist scientist
who had studied and examined the shroud with a very sceptical eye,
was convinced it was real,he then converted to xian.
From www.skepdic.com:
In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350. The shroud allegedly was in a fire during the early part of the 16th century and, according to believers in the shroud's authenticity, that is what accounts for the carbon dating of the shroud as being no more than 650 years old. To non-believers, this sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis. According to microchemist Dr. Walter McCrone,
The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*
It may interest skeptics to know that many people of faith believe that there is scientific evidence which supports their belief in the shroud's authenticity. ...
Walter McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (McCrone 1998). He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999). For his work, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.
Case closed as far as I can see, no point in debate or argument here. But if carbon dating isn't enough for some reason, read the whole article.
But carbon dating should be enough by itself, it is very accurate
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThe biggest objection to the carbon dating is the hypothesis that the section used for carbon dating came from an area of the Shroud that was rewoven/repaired in the Middle Ages:
Case closed as far as I can see, no point in debate or argument here. But if carbon dating isn't enough for some reason, read the whole article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin#Chemical_properties_of_the_sample_site
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo you are saying that it is very likely that 3 different labs given three different samples from three different part of the shroud are all from the small parts that MAY have been repaired (because there is no proof that repair was made, since there is arguable evidence that supports it being from that tiume) during the 14th century?
The biggest objection to the carbon dating is the hypothesis that the section used for carbon dating came from an area of the Shroud that was rewoven/repaired in the Middle Ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin#Chemical_properties_of_the_sample_site
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.html
Do you actually know the probablity of that occuring?
Originally posted by KnightWulfeRead through both the articles I cited - your objection is addressed there. In particular, all three labs received their samples from the same section of the Shroud, and there is evidence to suggest that the section in question was repaired.
So you are saying that it is very likely that 3 different labs given three different samples from three different part of the shroud are all from the small parts that MAY have been repaired (because there is no proof that repair was made, since there is arguable evidence that supports it [b]being from that tiume) during the 14th century?[/b]
The other evidence for it "being" from that time is also addressed.
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course there is evidence....The carbon dating puts it in that timeframe.
Read through both the articles I cited - your objection is addressed there. In particular, all three labs received their samples from the same section of the Shroud, [b]and there is evidence to suggest that the section in question was repaired.
The other evidence for it "being" from that time is also addressed.[/b]
Honestly, I think it is a forgery, but there is no conclusive proof. The only way would be to test a myriad of sections of it to get an accurate measurement from more than just one small point. I must have misread the study.
If it is authentic from the Roman time period as a burial shroud, One, how does it prove that Jesus was alive - it could be from any burial....
The other question I have is why is the "image" on the Shroud depicting the standard "english" version of what Christ looked like. Look at the area from where he is supposed to be birthed.... Fair hair and pale skin are not traits of that region, or any region close to that one.