Radio Carbon Dating


OhMan, #4, Part III:
Seriously have you even tried asking the Vatican. At least make that pithy step before you keep going on.

Jabba #6:
- OhMan,
- IMO, that is what would be a waste of time. Many people with serious leverage have been asking that of the Vatican, w/o result, for a long time. I have absolutely no leverage, and sure think that my chance of any positive result is exactly zilch.

Jabba #7:
- This is a follow up to my message to you of 2/6/11 (#209) on "The Shroud of Turin Part II."
- has a simple description of the latest scientific research regarding the validity of the carbon dating results from 1988.

OhMan, #9:
- Thank you for that link.
- Yes I agree with Steen it does seem to be a very far-fetched attempt to escape the brutal fact that the dating sets it way after Jesus time.
- In addition, at its best it simply leaves you with not knowing the date at all, and just 'hoping' that the date is in Jesus' time. Since the Vatican won't let it out...
- Why don't you try and organize the Vatican to see if they can release it for a carbon dating only? Come on Jabba pull some strings, make some phone calls, don't just give up without even trying.
- It makes it look like to me that you are not being very sincere about this study.

Jabba, #12:
- I've hardly ever agreed to disagree -- but, I seem to be stuck in this case. I am already more than pressed for time, and I'm 99% sure that this would be a waste of it. Sorry.

OhMan, #14:
- The most sincere, honest, and far more importantly, useful thing to do right now is attempt to gain access to the Shroud once-more so a very simple series of tests can be done to conclude the matter once and for all.
- Put your time to good use, and start putting pressure on the Vatican, get petitions signed, call up everyone you know, make something happen. Sure, you may waste your time, and the Vatican will continue to suppress the information; but at least you would have wasted your time doing something meaningful, useful, and honest, rather than this current method of simply recycling information we already have and trying to mould it into a shape that soothes your horrific, crippling, conformation bias.
- ETA: And really mate, THINK about it, why is the Vatican stopping scientists from doing that very simple test? They obviously can't be worried about damage if they knew what the test entailed. I mean, what far-fetched theory must you think of to actually think the Vatican is doing it for any series of plausible, honest reasons, rather then dishonest, unscientific ones? You are wasting your time.


Steen, #10:
- From previous articles that Jabba has dug out, we know that there have been various attempts to date the shroud without carbon dating. There has been a strange claim that the chemical composition of the linen could only be a thousand years older. I am not sure if this is a dating method at all, or just a claim that we know other linen with this composition that was a thousand years older, so this must also be old.
- A more serious attempt at dating has been the claim that the weaving method was unique for Roman times. Unfortunately, if this was true (i.e. that nobody could use this older method a thousand years later), then the question is how the invisible patch - which must have had the same weaving pattern, or it would not be invisible - could be from about AD 1300. It seems that this argument is invalidated by carbon dating

From Jabba, #11:
- It's problematic for me to try to deal with two issues at a time (I'm a failure at multi-tasking) -- however, I'll try to do it anyway. (I had wanted to focus exclusively on the blood issue for now.)
- In going back to the carbon dating issue, I was hoping that I could respond to OhMan's questions quickly, and otherwise put the dating issue on the back burners for now. Clearly, that was foolish of me... But I'm learning.
- This could sound like I'm obtusely "fussing" at OhMan, but I don't mean to do that at all. I'm fussing at myself. (I hope that's somewhat intelligible.)
- The following is long, but probably the best summary of the reasons for doubting the carbon dating results that I've found. It is followed, to some extent, by arguments against those reasons...

From Steen, #13:
Were the fibres not distributed to a number of testing labs that all came up with a younger date? The arguments that that there are internal differences in dating seem of little consequence in this light. ***


From Jabba, #11:
- All in all, I still think that the preponderance of scientific evidence clearly supports the invalidity of the carbon-dating, but do think that the arguments against that conclusion need to be answered...
- In regard to the "splicing," the people who are suggesting this are numerous, apparently respectable scientists who have actually studied the material. As "strange" as such splicing may seem to me, I have to assume that these scientists know much more about all this than do I. Maybe not, but if I were a betting man, my money would not be on me.***

- I've read just a little about the alleged tradition of "invisible reweaving" amongst nuns in France (I think) -- but, I need to do some research in order to provide anything specific, or helpful.


From Jabba, #11:
- And then, their basic claim is simply that the area carbon dated was not really representative of the larger cloth. The more specific splicing explanation seems to be something that they were reluctantly forced to believe.

From Steen, #13:
Indeed. It seems very much that they had to come up with a very unlikely story in order to explain away the carbon dating.***


III, from 43, Flower:
- ..... And we still have the case of the C-14 and the magic invisible repair.
- As long as no new C-14 has been performed, there is no use in discussing the age of the shroud.
- Unless a C-14 can be performed that gives the correct age or presents a scientific explanation to why it does not give the correct age, the only other explanation is a "miracle" that puts it outside the realm of science.
- In that case, no scientific attempts are worth the effort, because they are irrelevant.
- The scientist should not waste time on the shroud, and the believers should stick to "faith" and give up trying to find their non-existing scientific justification of faith.

III, from 44, Jabba:
- I do recognize that I am biased and that I afford more weight to my "evidence" than would someone who was totally objective. The trouble is, I'm sure that you guys do the same thing...
- On this forum, I'm trying to 1) be as objective as I can (which may not be saying a whole lot), 2) present all I consider to be significant evidence for Shroud authenticity and 3) fairly consider your arguments against authenticity.
- To the extent that I can read my own mind, there are some chinks in my own armor, but the vast majority of it is pretty sound. I think that the strongest part of your ("you" being you specifically, as well as the others on this forum) armor is what I'm calling the "indirect" evidence: the improbability of miracles. I think that your direct evidence is pretty weak when lined up against my direct evidence. I assume that you still think the opposite.

III, From 45, Flower:
- OK
- C-14 dating is 1000 years off the mark, you only have a (very thin) ad hoc answer to that.
- That is major direct evidence, basically discrediting the shroud as a 2000 year old artifact.
- Until the C-14 is checked, the shroud is a later production. (Like almost all the other older RCC relics probably are).
- You really have nothing but speculation, wishful thinking and church lore telling you that it is THE SHROUD.
Even the bible and jewish burial customs speaks against it. ***