Subscribe: Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #3
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/feeds/8369920612158170107/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade C rated
Language: English
Tags:
age  dealt point  dealt  jan  linen  piece  point  radiocarbon age  radiocarbon  rogers  sample  shroud turin  shroud  weave  whiting 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #3

Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #3





Updated: 2016-03-09T22:52:30.786+08:00

 



Anonymous>Apologies if you have dealt with this po...

2007-05-11T13:04:00.000+08:00

Anonymous>Apologies if you have dealt with this point elsewhere, Stephen, but...>>A *lot* of attention has been paid recently to the possibility that the piece of the Shroud which was carbon-dated in 1988 was in fact (at least in part) a medieval repair weave, carried out so deftly as to be invisible to the naked eye.Raymond Rogers published on this in Thermochimica Acta in Jan 2005, building on the work of Benford and Marino.Thanks. I have not, as far as I can find or recall, posted to my blog the late Ray Rogers' claim that a compound called vanillin was present in the small sample of the Shroud that was radiocarbon dated in 1988, but has not been found on the rest of the Shroud, and therefore the sample was a younger patch that was not representative of the Shroud itself.However, I had previously posted articles about it to my now-terminated Yahoo group on 30-Jan-05, 01-Feb-05; 02-Feb-05 & 03-Feb-05; and I have also recently republished unwebbed articles; on it.>If this were true, then the C14 result would be correct but invalid - it would apply to an unrepresentative piece of the linen.Recall that the original plan in 1988 was to take seven samples from different areas of the cloth. At the last minute, however, this agreed protocol was arbitrarily dropped in favour of cutting off just one sample.That claim is strongly argued for in Brendan Whiting's (flawed but still valuable) book, "The Shroud Story" (2006) and I ageed that if true, this would further invalidate the 1988 radiocarbon dating. But veteran Shroud researcher historian Ian Wilson cautions against Roger's "re-weave" theory in his review of Whiting's book:"In Whiting's zeal to espouse the late Dr.Ray Rogers `re-weave' theory, which he used heavily to help publicise his book, it does not seem to have occurred to him to talk in depth to the two restorers, professional textile experts [Mechthild Flury-Lemberg and Irene Tomedi] who have spent more hours in the closest contact with the Shroud than any other living person, concerning why they refute the theory. Whiting attended the 2005 Dallas Conference, at which Dr. Flury-Lemberg was one of the guest speakers, so he had every opportunity to question her in depth. So much, therefore, for his claimed `impartial' presentation of `all the facts'." (Wilson, I., "Review of Brendan Whiting The Shroud Story, Harbour Publishing, Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia, 2006. 21 January 2007).And my claim is (and always has been since my post of 28-Jan-05 to my Yahoo group) that the entire Shroud of Turin should be expected to have a younger radiocarbon age than its actual age, because of centuries of: 1) irradiation from being kept in granite monastery and castle vaults; and 2) microorganism contamination from victim's blood, sweat and tissue on it, and from being handled and kissed by thousands of people. Also, the Shroud has also been through at least two fires (in 1532 and 1997) which some claim may also have affected its radiocarbon age, although the second fire was after the 1988 radiocarbon dating. However, it seems to me to be unlikely that this could have affected the Shroud's C14/C12 ratio (assuming that a chemical fire even could make nuclear changes) as the Shroud was folded up and apart from edge burns, the linen fabric of the Shroud as a whole does not seem to have been affected by the fires. But my main point, which I will make in part #4, is that if the Shroud of Turin really is the linen sheet that was covering Jesus' body at the moment of His resurrection, when His body changed state into a "glorious body" (Php 3:21; 1 Cor 15:42-44), which could pass through walls and locked doors (Jn 20:19,26); and that change of matter state involved a discharge of radiation; then that is an additional reason to expect that the Shroud would have a younger radiocarbon age than its then actual age of ~2,000 years.Stephen E. Jones[...]



Apologies if you have dealt with this point elsewh...

2007-05-10T20:33:00.000+08:00

Apologies if you have dealt with this point elsewhere, Stephen, but...
A *lot* of attention has been paid recently to the possibility that the piece of the Shroud which was carbon-dated in 1988 was in fact (at least in part) a medieval repair weave, carried out so deftly as to be invisible to the naked eye.
Raymond Rogers published on this in Thermochimica Acta in Jan 2005, building on the work of Benford and Marino.
If this were true, then the C14 result would be correct but invalid - it would apply to an unrepresentative piece of the linen.
Recall that the original plan in 1988 was to take seven samples from different areas of the cloth. At the last minute, however, this agreed protocol was arbitrarily dropped in favour of cutting off just one sample.