Radiocarbon 14 dating of the shroud of turin
And fraudulently done in such a way that dates that were after the Shroud's 1355 first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, were almost eliminated[17Feb19b].And also that there is a fatal flaw in the dating in that the agreement across the three laboratories of the control samples was "exceptionally good" yet the "spread of the measurements" of the Shroud samples across the three laboratories was "greater than would be expected"[17Feb19c]:"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for [control] samples 2, 3 and 4 is exceptionally good.The basic problem in all these attempts (including yours) to reconcile the first century date of the Shroud with the 13th-14th century radiocarbon date is that they accept that the 1260-1390 date was valid.But see my post [17Feb19a] that the 1260-1390 date was achieved through scientific fraud in combining Arizona's eight runs into 4 runs which never happened.But is it likely that the mindless actions of countless billions of microbes `just happened' to shift the radiocarbon date of the first-century Shroud thirteen centuries into the future to the `bull's eye' date 1325±65? Tipler (1947-) noted that it "would be an extraordinary and very improbable coincidence if the amount of carbon added to the Shroud were exactly the amount needed to give the date that indicated a fraud" but he believes that is what actually happened, and it was literally a "miracle":"A very plausible history of the Shroud from A. display[ed] it as the unique burial cloth of Jesus ...
[Above (enlarge): Photomicrograph taken by pro-authenticist STURP photographer Barrie Schwortz in 2012, of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample.
" Your words are bold and prefaced by "You wrote a critique in connection our opinion : wrong is the radiocarbon dating of Shroud of Turin in the consequence of biological isotopfractionation.[Above (enlarge): The differences between the three isotopes of carbon: Carbon 12 has 6 protons, 6 neutrons & 6 electrons (stable); carbon 13 has 6 protons, 7 neutrons & 6 electrons (stable); and carbon 14 has 6 protons, 8 neutrons & 6 electrons (unstable).
For isotope fractionation to work at the microbiological level between these three isotopes of carbon requires that microbes can distinguish between molecules containing carbon atoms differing by 1 or 2 neutrons, and that they do `prefer' the latter over the former.
And that is what you are claiming: that the mindless growth of microbes on the Shroud's linen just happened to add enough new carbon-14 to shift the first-century Shroud's radiocarbon date thirteen century into the future to, not just any date, but 1325 /-65, a date which is so close to the Shroud's 1355 first appearance in undisputed history that its upper limit is 1390, 35 years after it!
Tipler was right when he concluded that would be a miracle (if it had happened). Why would Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, who is ruling over all (Acts ; Rom 9:5; Eph -22; Php 2:9), deliberately deceive His followers (like me) and provide evidence for anti-Christians that the Shroud (and Christianity) is false? Adler listed the problems with Garza-Valdes bioplasting coating theory. There are no bioplastic coatings on the Shroud, This is just playing with words. Adler (1931-2000)'s criticisms of the late Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes (1939-2010) bioplastic[Right (enlarge): Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes (left) and microbiologist Prof. ' Garza-Valdez makes a large number of extravagant claims, many of them self-contradictory, at odds with accepted Shroud scientific literature, or at odds with basic accepted biochemical, chemical, or physical knowledge ... contention is that the entire cloth is more or less covered by a bioplastic coating deposited by a novel microbe that he himself has discovered in the Shroud samples in his possession.