Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
OK, I told you that C-14 dating is usually faulty with samples of known age
then why should it work with samples of unknown age ? I know you don't believe it, but that's your problem. There is enough evidence that points to me being right.
Plus even if the C-14 dating worked, as the video points out the 'scientist' who dated Shroud commited a deliberate fraud by substituting the samples and consulting each other behind a closed door. I think it safe to say that the whole thing was a fraud.
Originally posted by RCC OK, I told you that C-14 dating is usually faulty with samples of known age
then why should it work with samples of unknown age ? I know you don't believe it, but that's your problem. There is enough evidence that points to me being right.
And who are you? Radiochemists and scientists say it is reliable, RCC does not. Hmm which one should I trust. . . . Please, RCC provide this evidence that makes you right citing revelant scientific publications to back yourself up.
Plus even if the C-14 dating worked, as the video points out the 'scientist' who dated Shroud commited a deliberate fraud by substituting the samples and consulting each other behind a closed door. I think it safe to say that the whole thing was a fraud.
You wouldn't happen to have any peer-reviewed scientific articles that say this? This sounds alot like "Discovery Channel" versus PNAS.
__________________ ~~RvFvS~~ Evolution: The change of properties of populations of organisms over time. Microevolution: Evolution apparent within species. Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.
The accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion.
Originally posted by RCC OK, I told you that C-14 dating is usually faulty with samples of known age
then why should it work with samples of unknown age ? I know you don't believe it, but that's your problem. There is enough evidence that points to me being right.
Plus even if the C-14 dating worked, as the video points out the 'scientist' who dated Shroud commited a deliberate fraud by substituting the samples and consulting each other behind a closed door. I think it safe to say that the whole thing was a fraud.
Why would scientists need to commit fraud to make a faulty test give bad results? Wouldn't the results be wrong anyway?
Also, if the tests you speak of occured before 1960 or we on inorganic materials, your proof is invalid.
I've done enough personal research that even before the C-14 dating was done, I had accepted the Shroud as genuine. It's a matter of belief.
If C-14 were the ONLY means of dating the Shroud, AND there was no other evidence as to the veracity of the image, okay, I might buy it. I've got enough of a background in science to believe in the credibility of C-14.
Here are the facts as I know them:
-The cloth is comparable to what was produced in Palestine at the time of Christ
-The pollens in the weave of the cloth is comparable to what was in Palestine at the time of Christ
-The image is of a crucified man
-All wounds on the image correspond to those of Christ
-The image is NOT painted on. It appears to be scorched into only the outer layer of the threads.
-The "bloodstains" however were produced by another means, and they dissolve as dried blood would, and from tests which can be done on bloodstains of ancient origin, they appear to be blood
-There is the existence of a cloth in early Church history which contained the image of the face of Christ. This cloth disappeared, and then years later the Shroud was discovered. It has been proposed that the cloth was simply the Shroud folded so only the face was visible. If this is the case, it provides the continuity missing
Okay, so all these by themselves mean squat. But taken together provide a pretty convincing case for the validity of the Shroud of Turin being the actual burial cloth of Christ.
So, what about the C-14 dating?
Well, for starters, the cloth was exposed to a fire a couple of hundred years ago. Parts of the cloth were even burned. And you'll find that alone can skew the results of C-14 dating.
Nuns tried to "mend" the cloth, by cutting away the burned portions and patching with a fabric that was contemporary to the time of the fire.
And...there has been a discovery of a type of mold growing on the fibers of the cloth, visible only on the microscopic level. However, since the mold is a current, living thing, ITS existence could possibly contaminate the C-14 dating.
So, the ultimate conclusion is that it's a personal decision as to whether or not the Shroud is "the real thing."
Either you accept it, or you don't. However, if you don't, there's absolutely no need for name calling and derogatory remarks.
Originally posted by VOW Play nice, boys and girls!
I've done enough personal research that even before the C-14 dating was done, I had accepted the Shroud as genuine. It's a matter of belief.
If C-14 were the ONLY means of dating the Shroud, AND there was no other evidence as to the veracity of the image, okay, I might buy it. I've got enough of a background in science to believe in the credibility of C-14.
Here are the facts as I know them:
-The cloth is comparable to what was produced in Palestine at the time of Christ
-The pollens in the weave of the cloth is comparable to what was in Palestine at the time of Christ
-The image is of a crucified man
-All wounds on the image correspond to those of Christ
-The image is NOT painted on. It appears to be scorched into only the outer layer of the threads.
-The "bloodstains" however were produced by another means, and they dissolve as dried blood would, and from tests which can be done on bloodstains of ancient origin, they appear to be blood
-There is the existence of a cloth in early Church history which contained the image of the face of Christ. This cloth disappeared, and then years later the Shroud was discovered. It has been proposed that the cloth was simply the Shroud folded so only the face was visible. If this is the case, it provides the continuity missing
Okay, so all these by themselves mean squat. But taken together provide a pretty convincing case for the validity of the Shroud of Turin being the actual burial cloth of Christ.
So, what about the C-14 dating?
Well, for starters, the cloth was exposed to a fire a couple of hundred years ago. Parts of the cloth were even burned. And you'll find that alone can skew the results of C-14 dating.
Nuns tried to "mend" the cloth, by cutting away the burned portions and patching with a fabric that was contemporary to the time of the fire.
And...there has been a discovery of a type of mold growing on the fibers of the cloth, visible only on the microscopic level. However, since the mold is a current, living thing, ITS existence could possibly contaminate the C-14 dating.
So, the ultimate conclusion is that it's a personal decision as to whether or not the Shroud is "the real thing."
Either you accept it, or you don't. However, if you don't, there's absolutely no need for name calling and derogatory remarks.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Excellent points, and admirable attitude. Thanks.
__________________ If you lived here you'd be home by now.
Linear Mode
