Carbon Dating & The Shroud of Turin

BlackTyranny writes "The Shroud of Turin, carbon dated in 1978 by a team of scientists, may be far older than originally thought. Raymond N. Rogers, a retired chemist from the University of California-operated Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, part of the original team, used samples given to him in 2003 from the Cardinal of Turin's scientific advisor. Roger's contends that the carbon dating might be faulty because "the people who cut the sample didn't do a very good job of characterizing the samples," that is, taking samples from many areas of the cloth." I think the shroud 'Patch' may be made of the big foot suit. ;)

Comments

And on the back...

[Faust7]

"Made in Taiwan,
80% Cotton,
20% Polyester,
Dry Clean Only."

dating

[dankelley]

Yeah, most of my dating is faulty also. Oh, carbon, you say. Nevermind.

Re:dating

[Anonymous Coward]

Silicon, yes - lifeforms no... Its amazing what Silicon can be molded into now days.

Of course, some people believe blow up dolls are real.

Damn! That means I have to accept the possibility.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...that God made the entire universe universe, impregnated some woman on a the third planet from a very insignificant star and then let the resulting offspring get killed. I'd come to the conclusion this story wasn't true but now the Turin shroud dating is in question I have to revise my view of the entire universe again. Really, can't these archaeologists get their act together. The indecision is killing me.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[EvilCabbage]

Jesus titty-fucking-christ, ususally I'm the one that get's accused of being humorless..

For sake of argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the shroud is the cloth that jesus was wrapped in when he was buried. What exactly does that prove, anyway?

Maybe if intact DNA could be found on the cloth, they could clone it, and get the resulting guy to reason with christians.

Hm...

[HackNack]

Scientific method:

1. Characterization
2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation)
3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
4. Experiment (test of all of the above)
5. Conclusion (an objective conclusion based on #4)

Dr. Raymond Rogers's Method

1. Conclusion (It was Jesus's burial shroud)
2. Characterization (What's that?)
3. Hypothesis (Huh?)
4. Prediction (We all know it was Jesus's)
5. Experiment (Hmmm, let's pick a method that will ballpark the age better. 100,000 BC to 2005 CE GOOD! Hey, it's all good.)

Turin..

[mechsoph]

Anybody else read that as the "Shroud of Turing"?

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[Anonymous Coward]

ususally I'm the one that get's accused of being humorless..

I dunno. I thought it was pretty funny how you stuck that apostrophe in gets.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[EvilCabbage]

Damn, and I usually double check all my post's to, be sure gramma. Is correct. I must, be using the "sydlecix". setting's.

Re:Damn! That means I have to accept the possibili

[Anonymous Coward]

there were literally tons of wood that was supposedly from the cross that jesus was supposedly nailed to.

Shhh, I'm making good money selling my leftover firewood on eBay.

Re: Face imprint gives away the fake

[Black Parrot]

> What about the genitalia? If the face image is preserved, why not the genitalia.

Apparently even dead people are ashamed of their unmentionables. So much so that they cover themselves with their hands, even underneath their shrouds.

science

[Deanalator]

"The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood"

"It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named Jesus,"

So am I to believe then, that noone else here has seen jurassic park?

Re:Authenticity

[Fred_A]

There is strong experimental evidence against your theory :)

Re:Face imprint gives away the fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey kids, you can try this at home. Just wet your face and lightly wrap a paper towel around it for a second and then see if you recognize yourself in the image.

There seems to be a problem with this. With the paper towel around my face, I couldn't see anything.

Please provide better directions.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[chialea]

>Sex laws served two purposes. They held the family units together and guaranteed growth of the nation (more offspring than parents) as well as preserving the purity of the group.

Have you looked at the family purity laws? What is so terrible about touching your wife while she's in labour? What's so terrible about touching her only 6 days after she's had a midcyle spot? Even if she's having her period, I think that passing the salt is probably not so bad.

Lea

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[FCAdcock]

Then how come my neighbor's dog only humps other male dogs? I'd consider him evidence that other species have homosexual members.

Boy that dog's a fag...

And in news from the future...

[fyngyrz]

...today, scientists report that carbon dating of the "Toast of the Virgin Mary" was likely in error. Professor Egon Frushkup said that "previous attempts to date the toast were flawed in that too many of the samples were taken from the crust." Popular urban legends attribute the toast to a 20th-century Ebay hoax; the pope, Pontificus Maximus Jerod XV, has stated that "the Toast is a sign from God which dates from the very first days of Christ."

We would like to thank Professor Frushkup for taking a few minutes out of his 7.0 day worshihp services to speak with 28th Century News.

Would you like to know more? Click Here

Re: Face imprint gives away the fake

[Anonymous Coward]

> > What about the genitalia? If the face image is preserved, why not the genitalia.

> Apparently even dead people are ashamed of their unmentionables. So much so that they cover themselves with their hands, even underneath their shrouds.

This is not as funny as you might think. I know that at least some of the people relate this phenomena to The Holy Foreskin of Jesus. Jesus ascended bodily into Heaven forty days after his resurrection from the dead and the only part of His body left behind on Earth is His Holy Prepuce removed at his circumcision. (No, I am not making that up.) Other than that, the historicity of Jesus is disputed at best [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] so obviously the Holy Foreskin is an extremely important object, and the lack of penile imprints on the Shroud of Turin is an equally important phenomena.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Well, his engineering sure sucks.

From the comical (nipples for men) to the irritating (large neural cluster prone to "head aches") to the legally actionable sloppy engineering (lack of redundant blood supplies to vital areas, esp. brain and heart, inability for modern bodies to handle a wealth of food supply once capitalism slapped "by the sweat of your brow shall you till the soil" down like a redheadded stepchild.)

Fuck Yaweh and the scapegoat he rode in on. Grow some (cancer prone) balls, people.

Re:Religious "Proof"

[Anonymous Coward]

First let me say that I believe in the supernatural without any proof and my faith in the supernatural has been a guiding and supporting influence in my life. Since I already believe one really idiotic thing regardless of the lack of evidence, I am open to believing any other idiotic idea without any evidence simply because it feels right to me.

"Rational people who do not believe will believe when the proper evidence is provided. Those who have been brainwhased by their parents to believe will continue to believe even if no evidence ever appears" --- Me