This is so freakin' AWESOME. And I mean that in the literal sense (awesome, not freakin'). Personally, I am a sindonista and will most likely go to my grave believing in it. I don't need science to dicate the shroud's authenticity to me, because I think enough evidence adds up to support my belief (which has nothing to do with the belief in the existence of Jesus; totally divorced). But it is pretty cool when things like this come out.
To my knowledge there is only one "con" against the shroud, and that is the carbon dating component. There are two credible explanations for the descrepancy there, but since the test was done almost two decades ago, I just chalked it up to the technology being in such early stages at the time, regardless of the results. The "pros" on the other side comprise a much longer list.
The carbon dating process was tainted by the samples being taken from an area that had been repaired (it was cotton not linen) and dyed. I saw a special on this and had my kids watch it to show how unscientific the process was and how unprofessional the scientists were when their work was called into question. A good synopsis of the C14 dating problem is here: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n61part6.pdf
but there is definitely more to the story.
Very cool, thanks for posting. It is always interesting to see the absolutely visceral response to the shroud on the part of many non-believers, it would be interesting to know how many people came to the faith because of it.
January 21, 2010 at 8:46 pm
This is so freakin' AWESOME. And I mean that in the literal sense (awesome, not freakin'). Personally, I am a sindonista and will most likely go to my grave believing in it. I don't need science to dicate the shroud's authenticity to me, because I think enough evidence adds up to support my belief (which has nothing to do with the belief in the existence of Jesus; totally divorced). But it is pretty cool when things like this come out.
January 21, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Here's a question for the skeptic: would a medieval forger be familiar with Aramaic, which was the lingua franca for that region?
January 21, 2010 at 8:57 pm
For some reason, the Shroud makes some people (usually nonbelievers) very upset. I guess that's why I love blogging about it so much.
January 21, 2010 at 9:09 pm
To my knowledge there is only one "con" against the shroud, and that is the carbon dating component. There are two credible explanations for the descrepancy there, but since the test was done almost two decades ago, I just chalked it up to the technology being in such early stages at the time, regardless of the results. The "pros" on the other side comprise a much longer list.
January 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Sweet! I love hearing new evidence supporting the Shroud's authenticity.
January 21, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Awesome!
January 21, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Early Riser,
The carbon dating process was tainted by the samples being taken from an area that had been repaired (it was cotton not linen) and dyed. I saw a special on this and had my kids watch it to show how unscientific the process was and how unprofessional the scientists were when their work was called into question. A good synopsis of the C14 dating problem is here: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n61part6.pdf
but there is definitely more to the story.
January 22, 2010 at 5:07 am
Very cool, thanks for posting. It is always interesting to see the absolutely visceral response to the shroud on the part of many non-believers, it would be interesting to know how many people came to the faith because of it.