| − | 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 ...," Rogers said.<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref> |
| | Using radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is subject to several inherent uncertainties: the probability that the sample was taken from the original cloth rather than a patch, the probability that the miracle did not undermine the assumptions of radiocarbon dating, and the probability that the 1532 fire which damaged the Shroud did not distort the dating. If each of these probabilities is roughly 50%, then the chance of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud being accurate is only (1/2)<sup>3</sup> = 12.5%. | | Using radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is subject to several inherent uncertainties: the probability that the sample was taken from the original cloth rather than a patch, the probability that the miracle did not undermine the assumptions of radiocarbon dating, and the probability that the 1532 fire which damaged the Shroud did not distort the dating. If each of these probabilities is roughly 50%, then the chance of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud being accurate is only (1/2)<sup>3</sup> = 12.5%. |