A scientific study of the Shroud of Turin being conducted by Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development has led researchers there to conclude that the artifact could not have been a medieval forgery as skeptics suspect and deniers maintain. While there is an abundance of archaeological evidence on the Shroud confirming its presence in the area of Jerusalem around the early part of the first millennium A.D. (characteristics of the cloth itself, pollen samples, etc.), and historical and anatomical details from the image that were not known in the 13th century, the main argument of these scientists against a proclamation of forgery is that we do not yet know how the image was formed on the cloth. There have been the occasional reports of individuals or groups (some funded by atheists) who claim to have reproduced the image, yet microscopic forensics of their work shows little resemblance to the actual Shroud image. Most of these efforts employed pigments, even though it is established fact that the actual image was not made using pigments or paints, while others used advanced technology not available in either Biblical or medieval times. To date, no one has been able to perfectly reproduce the image in every detail. If we cannot say for certain how it was made, then we cannot say with certainty that it was forged.
The main piece of evidence against its authenticity—and in the end, the only piece—is the carbon-14 test performed some years ago that placed the cloth’s age around 1300 AD. All deniers and skeptics hang their hat on this. But as you probably know, there have been many legitimate disputes concerning these findings, not the least of which is the considerable amount of contamination this artifact has suffered over the centuries. An article so contaminated would never be accepted without question as a reliable source of carbon-14 dating under normal circumstances. In fact, the standard procedure in archaeology is that, given an archaeological site where the dating of the artifacts can be firmly established by depth of the find, style of pottery, etc., but a carbon-14 test shows a significant difference to that dating, then the carbon-14 results are thrown out as flawed in favor of the more reliable physical evidence of the artifacts themselves. This is precisely the case we find in the archaeological ‘site’ known as the Shroud of Turin, where all the physical artifacts point to an early firstmillennium dating. Unfortunately, the stakes are so high for those seeking to discredit this venerated relic that such standard criteria and procedures in the field of archaeology are ignored for the sake of agenda. And so the debate continues.
It’s important to keep in mind that one has to be skeptical of the skeptics and deniers too. Say we have an occurrence where a truck veered off a mountain road and crashed, killing its driver. We don’t really know what happened—the driver could have tried to avoid an animal, fell asleep or suffered a heart attack. Now let’s say a skeptic argues that the driver committed suicide. The skeptic can perfectly duplicate the accident in every detail by purposely steering the truck off the edge of the road. Since the accident can be precisely ‘faked’ in this way, then the conclusion must be that it was a suicide. Just because an observation can be intentionally reproduced does not in itself discredit the observation. But the denier will certainly try to convince you that it’s so.
The main piece of evidence against its authenticity—and in the end, the only piece—is the carbon-14 test performed some years ago that placed the cloth’s age around 1300 AD. All deniers and skeptics hang their hat on this. But as you probably know, there have been many legitimate disputes concerning these findings, not the least of which is the considerable amount of contamination this artifact has suffered over the centuries. An article so contaminated would never be accepted without question as a reliable source of carbon-14 dating under normal circumstances. In fact, the standard procedure in archaeology is that, given an archaeological site where the dating of the artifacts can be firmly established by depth of the find, style of pottery, etc., but a carbon-14 test shows a significant difference to that dating, then the carbon-14 results are thrown out as flawed in favor of the more reliable physical evidence of the artifacts themselves. This is precisely the case we find in the archaeological ‘site’ known as the Shroud of Turin, where all the physical artifacts point to an early firstmillennium dating. Unfortunately, the stakes are so high for those seeking to discredit this venerated relic that such standard criteria and procedures in the field of archaeology are ignored for the sake of agenda. And so the debate continues.
It’s important to keep in mind that one has to be skeptical of the skeptics and deniers too. Say we have an occurrence where a truck veered off a mountain road and crashed, killing its driver. We don’t really know what happened—the driver could have tried to avoid an animal, fell asleep or suffered a heart attack. Now let’s say a skeptic argues that the driver committed suicide. The skeptic can perfectly duplicate the accident in every detail by purposely steering the truck off the edge of the road. Since the accident can be precisely ‘faked’ in this way, then the conclusion must be that it was a suicide. Just because an observation can be intentionally reproduced does not in itself discredit the observation. But the denier will certainly try to convince you that it’s so.
RSS Feed