According to De Wesselow, the 1988 carbon dating exercise was defective. Three samples were sent to each of Arizona, Oxford and Zurich.
Zurich claimed one sample was1,000years too late and another 1,000 too early.
Nope. They were all pretty close.
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years old
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years old
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old
Reference.
Where you get this + or - 1,000 yrs is anyone's guess.
There was no control, as the distinctive linen weave was immediately recognisable.
What control is it you desire? Three samples independantly analysed is in what way insufficient?
Archeological scientists were excluded.
This isn't archaeology.
As carbon dating is imprecise, contrary to general perception, archeologists consider historical context when estimating dates.
It is sufficiently precise. Or demonstrate that it is not.
Evidence points to the shroud having been in existence long before 1260:
Citation required.
the fact that the lignin in the fibres of the cloth has lost its vanillin, indicate it is over 1,300.
Not this again. Read the thread. Done to death.
It is a crucified figure, crucifixion was outlawed in Christendom in C4.
Artistic representation of crucifixion was not outlawed.
Scourge marks show antiquities era - the use of a Roman flagrum - as well as the weave showing antiquity, not the Middle Ages.
An artist would be well familiar with the biblical accounts. There is no reason that they could not have represented such.
The weave was unknown in antiquity, only appearing in the middle ages.
If Middle Ages the art would be idealised, not the stark image we have.
But it is stylised in the very style common to the middle ages. Byzantine style, I believe. Whatever, chisel shaped heads never existed, ever. The anatomic proportions are not just wrong, but impossible and the cloth itself does not conform to biblical accounts, so if you wish to claim the authenticity of the CIQ, you must perforce deny biblical accuracy.
Analysing art, takes it back at least to C6.
Citation required.
Lab samples were contaminated or chemically altered.
Citation required.
Similar thing happened with British Museum mummies: carbon dating found the cloth to be 1,000 younger than the body. Dr. Rosalie David knew this was wrong as the mummies had not been rewrapped.
Irrelevant.
Part of the shroud was scorched.
Of course it was, there was a fire from which the tablecloth had to be salvaged. So what?
Bioplastic coating transferred bacteria and fungi to the cloth.
Did they? Citation required.
De Wesselow writes: "The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science".
Yup. Because it will be held up as an example of how people can cling to their cherish crackpot beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary.
It doesn't seem to me to be "settled" "the Shroud dates to C13".
Tough. It's settled. Done. Over.
Now, what fascinates me is why so many cling to the discredited notion of the authenticity of the shroud. Even if they were to concede and accept it as fake, it would have no bearing upon their faith AT ALL.
I can only conceive of a few possibilities.
1. Their faith is so frail that the shroud being fake would destroy their faith. In that case, it is simple fear of the unknown that would lie before them.
2. It is essential to maintain the charade to bolster the faith of others. In that case, it is simply lying for jebus and a cynical exercise in hypocrisy.
3. They are so personally invested over many years that they cannot afford to confront the idea that it has been a waste of time and effort.
4. Something else of which I am unaware. Feel free.
In any event, the shroud being a fake has no hand act or part in anyone's faith. A christian should, in theory, not care a whit. In fact, according to the bible, it is a sin to invest so much in an artefact. This is one of the rare points of agreement between myself and the bible. Why become so invested in a piece of cloth that you neglect the directives of your faith?
