Historical Evidence and Scientific Evidence
There is historical evidence that the shroud is much older than the dates arrived at by carbon dating. We’ll see that this is so. We’ll also see scientific evidence that says the same thing. So, do we have an anomaly? If so, do we now have an explanation. The fact that three laboratories did the testing does not remove the possibility of an anomaly. The presumption in carbon dating is that all anomalies will eventually be explained, scientifically. But the fire contamination suggestion by Dawkins is old news. It never panned out. Neither did many other suggestions. Finally, one explanation did stick. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal and that was the paper that Molly from Alaska was seeking.
The paper was written by the late Raymond Rogers (1927-2005), a retired chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Interestingly he was not trying to dispute the carbon dating but to refute yet another “crazy” suggestion why the carbon dating might be wrong.
PREVIOUS NEXT
The Flat Earth Society
Yet attempts to prove the shroud is fake continue. Why?
The Shadow Shroud
Garlaschelli’s Shroud
Dictionary
Molly from Alaska
The Problem of Curriculum
Objective History
The Shroud is a religious object
Russell Kirk
John A. T. Robinson
Dematerialization
Finally, a clear explanation for the carbon dating
Joe and Lenny
Father Joe on Reason
The Shroud is Irrelevent?
Shroudoids and Skeptoids
Colossus of Rhodes
Lenny’s Opinions
Richard Dawkins on the Shroud
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence
Dawkins Should Know Better
Historians and the Lack of Evidence
But where are the records for it in
The Mummy at the Georges Labit Museum in Toulouse
Historical Evidence and Scientific Evidence
Raymond N. Rogers
Rogers in Turin
The Lunatic Fringe
Benford and Marino Onto Something
Letter to the Editors of
Joe Nickell: Sour Grapes
Jack of All Trades
Skeptics Dictionary More Closely
Not Proof