| | Invasive 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 (and drenching the Shroud to save it) that 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%. | | Invasive 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 (and drenching the Shroud to save it) that 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%. |
| − | Cotton fibers were found in the samples used to date the Shroud, indicating they were taken from a patched area rather than the original.<ref>In violation of the 1978 protocol, the three samples for the 1988 carbon-dating were all taken from the very same area and thus were flawed due to the reweave there, possibly intentionally so. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPLEu1MMYfo Summary on YouTube]</ref> In addition, 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. | + | Cotton fibers were found in the samples used to date the Shroud, indicating they were taken from a patched area rather than the original.<ref>In violation of the 1978 protocol, the three samples for the 1988 carbon-dating were all taken from the very same area and thus were flawed due to the reweave there, possibly intentionally so. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPLEu1MMYfo Summary on YouTube]</ref> In addition, 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. A letter by a clergyman skeptical of [[miracle]]s from the mid-1300s expressly refers to the Shroud as having originated in the mid-1200s, so it is at least that old.<ref>https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/other/newly-discovered-document-adds-evidence-that-shroud-of-turin-is-not-jesus-crucifixion-shroud/ar-AA1Lt4iV?cvid=67f6f9f3bca44ba9bd4da4ca7d2c3773</ref> |
| | Indeed, there is strong evidence that the sample for the 1988 analysis was actually taken from cloth woven into the Shroud during the [[Middle Ages]], thereby giving a false result. The sample contains a dye and also vanilla which are not found in the original Shroud.<ref name="Vanilla"/> 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, there is strong evidence that the sample for the 1988 analysis was actually taken from cloth woven into the Shroud during the [[Middle Ages]], thereby giving a false result. The sample contains a dye and also vanilla which are not found in the original Shroud.<ref name="Vanilla"/> 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"/> |