C Debate from negeriku.info-shroud
claimed "95% confidence" for the mediaeval radiocarbon dating They contacted ex-king Umberto of Italy, legal owner of the Shroud, living in exile in . During that Symposium, I had the opportunity to debate with Dr. Tite. The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth that tradition associates with the crucifixion and burial of . The proposed changes to the Turin protocol sparked another heated debate among scientists, and the sampling procedure was postponed. On April. The Shroud of Turin may be an authentic relic of Jesus or a medieval fake, but a DNA analysis of dust from the shroud won't settle the debate. Centuries later, in the s, radiocarbon dating, which measures the rate at an ethnic group that has some origin in Egypt and that lives mainly in restricted.
Is it a medieval fake or a relic of Jesus Christ?Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false
A new analysis of DNA from the Shroud of Turin reveals that people from all over the world have touched the venerated garment. Long-standing debate On its face, the Shroud of Turin is an unassuming piece of twill cloth that bears traces of blood and a darkened imprint of a man's body.
Scientists Just Examined The Shroud Of Turin, And They Found Something Awkward | IFLScience
Though the Catholic Church has never taken an official stance on the object's authenticity, tens of thousands flock to Turin, Italy, every year to get a glimpse of the object, believing that it wrapped the bruised and bleeding body of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion.
After crusaders sacked Constantinople in A. However, the Catholic Church only officially recorded its existence in A. Centuries later, in the s, radiocarbon dating, which measures the rate at which different isotopes of the carbon atoms decay, suggested the shroud was made between A. Isotopes are forms of an element with a different number of neutrons.
But critics argued that the researchers used patched-up portions of the cloth to date the sampleswhich could have been much younger than the rest of the garment. What's more, the Gospel of Matthew notes that "the earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open" after Jesus was crucified.
So geologists have argued that an earthquake at Jesus' death could have released a burst of neutrons. The neutron burst not only would have thrown off the radiocarbon dating but also would have led to the darkened imprint on the shroud.
In the current study, Barcaccia and his colleagues analyzed dust that they vacuumed from the shroud that contained traces of both plant and human DNA. The plant DNA came from all over the world, the researchers reported Oct.
European spruce trees; Mediterranean clovers, ryegrasses and plantains; North American black locust trees; and rare East Asian pear and plum trees all left their mark on the cloth. The genetic lineage, or haplotype, of the DNA snippets suggested that people ranging from North African Berbers to East Africans to inhabitants of China touched the garment.
The causes of these phenomena are known, but in many other cases anomalous dates have not been satisfactorily explained. Caution is certainly in order when C14 results conflict with the lines of interpretation indicated by other evidence.
I have no real quarrel with this paragraph.
As a radiocarbon scientist not, I must stress, an archaeologist I am familiar with the problems that can arise when a radiocarbon date apparently conflicts with prior expectations. And as an occasional bearer of bad news, I am used to having a back full of arrows! I can also say that in the great majority of cases the result of this is to reconfirm the previous result.
Shroud dating leaves 'forgery' debate raging
We should remember that if radiocarbon dating or any other technique is to be really useful we must expect it to produce new knowledge that may well conflict with what was previously thought. The examples of anomalous dates referred to do occur, and as pointed out they are mostly well understood - which means they do not pose a further problem. Sometimes problems do remain and we have to be prepared to either wait for a solution further down the track or start digging deeper to find out what is really going on.
But I do not think that this is the situation with respect to the Shroud. When I attended the conference in Turin for planning the C14 dating of the Shroud, at the invitation of the Vatican Academy of Sciences, I argued strongly for an extensive testing program This was met with arrogant dismissal by 5 of the 7 radiocarbon lab heads in attendance.
I do not know what transpired at the conference. On the face of it the suggestions made by Meacham seem quite reasonable, and if they were dismissed out of hand by others at the conference I can understand his feeling aggrieved.
Yes, it would take a lot of extraneous carbonaceous material to throw the date off by years, if contamination ALONE is the problem.
Is It a Fake? DNA Testing Deepens Mystery of Shroud of Turin
Isotope exchange with materials on or in prolonged contact with the cloth is another very strong possibility, and one which is very difficult or impossible to evaluate or test for I am not sure what is meant by "isotopic exchange" as distinct from "contamination".
If the suggestion is that 14C has preferentially migrated into the linen but not 13C and 12C, I have to say "no way! The transfer of carbon into or out of the cloth is fundamentally either a physical or chemical process, and will include all isotopes. True, there may well be isotopic fractionation during such processes, but the extent of fractionation that occurs is nowhere near sufficient to cause an apparent shift of years in the radiocarbon age.
The beauty of radiocarbon dating is that there are two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C, as well as the 14C.
The ratio of 13C to 12C can be, and always is, used to determine the degree of isotopic fractionation and correct the 14C accordingly.