Changes

Raymond N. Rogers, a retired [[chemist]] from the [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] in [[New Mexico]], studied the Shroud and declared, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what [[Pliny the Elder]] reported from his time," about A.D. 70.  "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]]," Rogers said.<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref>

Raymond N. Rogers, a retired [[chemist]] from the [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] in [[New Mexico]], studied the Shroud and declared, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what [[Pliny the Elder]] reported from his time," about A.D. 70.  "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]]," Rogers said.<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref>

[[Carbon dating]] test results conflict with each other and thus are not credible.  In 1988, a small snippet of the Shroud was extracted, '''''but the "C-14 results of the three labs fall outside the bounds of the Pearson's chi-square test," illustrating a flaw in the dating''''' that was likely due to a repair seam that ran diagonally "through the area from which the sample was taken."<ref>http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/shroud_of_turin.html</ref>  A peer-reviewed scientific paper later demonstrated the invalidity of those results, suggesting instead that the Shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old,<ref>Rogers, Raymond N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin". Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425 Issue 1–2, pp. 189-194 (Jan. 20, 2005)[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4DTBVHC-1&_user=10&_handle=B-WA-A-W-WE-MsSAYWA-UUA-AAUYYDZUYC-AAUZVCZYYC-YZEWAVVVC-WE-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F20%2F2005&_rdoc=26&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235292%232005%23995749998%23553672!&_cdi=5292&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3d89246a5d4144616be7657f0d83b6cf]</ref><ref>Mark Antonacci "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence"</ref> disproving the 1988 results that claimed that the Shroud originated between A.D. 1238 and 1430.

Meanwhile, radiocarbon dating "is vulnerable to contamination, and often yields imprecise results, particularly for the period" of [[Jesus]] because "[t]here are fewer artefacts with known dates to calibrate the scrolls' age against."<ref>https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-06-05/dead-sea-scrolls-ai-dating-palaeography/105374410</ref> [[Carbon dating]] test results of the Shroud conflict with each other and thus are not credible.  In 1988, a small snippet of the Shroud was extracted, '''''but the "C-14 results of the three labs fall outside the bounds of the Pearson's chi-square test," illustrating a flaw in the dating''''' that was likely due to a repair seam that ran diagonally "through the area from which the sample was taken."<ref>http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/shroud_of_turin.html</ref>  A peer-reviewed scientific paper later demonstrated the invalidity of those results, suggesting instead that the Shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old,<ref>Rogers, Raymond N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin". Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425 Issue 1–2, pp. 189-194 (Jan. 20, 2005)[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4DTBVHC-1&_user=10&_handle=B-WA-A-W-WE-MsSAYWA-UUA-AAUYYDZUYC-AAUZVCZYYC-YZEWAVVVC-WE-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F20%2F2005&_rdoc=26&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235292%232005%23995749998%23553672!&_cdi=5292&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3d89246a5d4144616be7657f0d83b6cf]</ref><ref>Mark Antonacci "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence"</ref> disproving the 1988 results that claimed that the Shroud originated between A.D. 1238 and 1430.

Indeed, the sample for the 1988 analysis had actually been taken from cloth woven into the Shroud during the [[Middle Ages]], thereby giving a false result.  Moreover, "the 12th Century Hungarian 'Pray Manuscript' come to depict Jesus being wrapped in the shroud - with authentic herringbone pattern and burn marks - 100 years before carbon-dating says the material originated."<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk"/>

Indeed, the sample for the 1988 analysis had actually been taken from cloth woven into the Shroud during the [[Middle Ages]], thereby giving a false result.  Moreover, "the 12th Century Hungarian 'Pray Manuscript' come to depict Jesus being wrapped in the shroud - with authentic herringbone pattern and burn marks - 100 years before carbon-dating says the material originated."<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk"/>

The defect in the carbon dating was that the samples were "uniquely coated with a yellow–brown [[plant]] gum containing dye lakes. [[Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry]] results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin.  The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."<ref>http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Definitions/Thermochimica-Acta.html</ref>  Instead, "[e]stimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses."<ref>http://shroudencounter.com/thermochimicaabstract.php</ref>

The defect in the carbon dating was that the samples were "uniquely coated with a yellow–brown [[plant]] gum containing dye lakes. [[Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry]] results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin.  The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."<ref>http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Definitions/Thermochimica-Acta.html</ref>  Instead, "[e]stimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses."<ref>http://shroudencounter.com/thermochimicaabstract.php</ref>

More generally, [[carbon dating]] provides less accurate results compared with other techniques for dating artifacts, as demonstrated by multiple failures in carbon dating of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Many materials cannot be reliably carbon dated, such as marine shells, due to background effects.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440309003306#:~:text=C%20dates%20on%20marine%20shells,known%2C%20the%20knowledge%20of%20its</ref>

More generally, [[carbon dating]] provides less accurate results compared with other techniques for dating artifacts, as demonstrated by multiple failures in carbon dating of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. In addition, many materials cannot be reliably carbon dated, such as marine shells, due to background effects.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440309003306#:~:text=C%20dates%20on%20marine%20shells,known%2C%20the%20knowledge%20of%20its</ref>

Finally, dating the cloth is of limited significance in analyzing a potential [[miracle]], which [[logic]]ally could have happened (and still could) at any time.  A miraculous imprint of an image could have slowed ordinary decay on which carbon dating is based, so it is flawed [[circular logic]] to try to determine by carbon dating whether the shroud is miraculous.

Finally, dating the cloth is of limited significance in analyzing a potential [[miracle]], which [[logic]]ally could have happened (and still could) at any time.  A miraculous imprint of an image could have slowed ordinary decay on which carbon dating is based, so it is flawed [[circular logic]] to try to determine by carbon dating whether the shroud is miraculous.