| | 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> | | 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 centuries of mold, bacteria and fungi, and 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%. |
| | Moreover, 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. | | Moreover, 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. |