Yeah, if I remember correctly, there were some "authenticity issues." I don't
know if it was due to carbon dating, but I do remember church officials
balking at the idea of letting scientists get their mitts all over it. Good
question.
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Dustin Summers wrote:
> wasnt there some problem or screw up when they first ran carbon dating tests
> on the shroud(sp?) of turin???? i forget i heard or saw something about this
> somewhere.
>
> dustin
>
> ----------
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
> >Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999, 5:18 PM
> >
>
> >
> > Not that I even want to indulge in this debate while I have essay coming due
> > left & right, but:
> >
> > The funny thing about carbon dating has always been its assumption: That the
> > forces of nature present now have always been the same. It is basing itself
> > on present conditions to explain the past, which isn't (hasn't?) been exactly
> > uniform throught out it's "4+ billion" to "2000 years" (depending on who you
> > ask, I guess!) of existence.
> >
> >
> >> K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon
> >> dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have
> >> yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they
> >> have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be
> >> some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses
> >> and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am,
> >> but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world
> >> would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say
> >> you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my
> >> Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis.
> >> Dont believe everything that you read.
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >
> >
>
