On October 13, 1988, almost all serious interest in the shroud came to a halt, when three scientists from three different carbon dating laboratories came together to announce the results for the carbon dating testing done on the Shroud. They dated the Shroud from 1260-1390 with a 95% accuracy rate.
What is Carbon Dating?
Before we can understand the Shroud’s carbon dating result, we must have a basic understanding of what carbon dating is. Everything that is living has carbon in it—we are all carbon-based life forms. Whenever something dies, through time, it slowly releases a C-14 isotope. Scientists have found a way to be able count what is left of this C-14 isotope through burning a sample of the material and tracking how much of the C-14 is still present. Through a series of calculations, a scientist can fairly accurately determine when something has died. Because the Shroud is a linen cloth, and linen comes from the flax plant, scientists should be able to determine when the flax plant was cut down and the Shroud’s linen was woven. However, there are several reasons why I, and others, believe that the Shroud’s carbon dating result is wrong. These reasons come from carbon dating manuals, not from skeptical theories or hopeful dreams.
Arguments against this carbon dating result:
I must preface these following arguments against the Shroud’s carbon dating result by saying that I do believe that the scientists did their job and did it well. I do not hold to the conspiracy theories that speculate the scientists, on their own or with the Vatican, substituted the shroud samples for other samples, or that the wrong cloth sample was labeled as the Shroud. These theories ascribe unneeded blame to professional people in order to try to undermine the integrity of the experiments that were done. I believe that these experiments were done well, however, unknown variables caused the results to give a date that is both incorrect and inconsistent with the overwhelming body of evidence that we have of the Shroud pointing to an origin in First-Century Jerusalem. With that said, I would like to propose the following arguments from carbon dating manuals to show why this carbon dating result is incorrect.
1) If the specimen is every exposed to extreme heat, the carbon dating test might be invalid as the C-14 isotope would likely be skewed.
We know historically that the Shroud, before its carbon dating test, endured a fire in 1532 which created a heat so hot that it melted the impure silver reliquary that held it. This level of heat was extreme and could have easily skewed the C-14 isotope.
2) If the specimen is chemically different than the whole, the carbon dating test would be invalid because one would not be testing a representative sample.
Originally seven small pieces from all over the cloth were going to be taken and carbon dated. At the last minute, this plan was abandoned and a small strip was cut from Rae’s corner and three pieces were cut from the strip to be carbon dated. In actuality, the laboratories did not do three different tests; they did the same test three times. After the dating results were announced, the caretakers looked closer at the area in which they took the strip. It was the most touched area on the shroud in all its history, and it was found to be chemically different then the rest of the cloth.
3) If the specimen was exposed to any dramatic form of radiation, the test would be invalid as the C-14 isotope would definitely be skewed.
While it is just a theory, many believe that a form of radiation or energy caused the body image to appear (this is discussed under the X-ray characteristics and Corona Discharge links). If this theory is correct, then the carbon dating test would be invalid.
4) If the linen specimen has a bio-plastic sheath on in then the test would be in valid because there is no cleaning process to this day that can remove it.
A bio-plastic sheath is a thin layer of fungus, mold, and mildew that develops on linen cloth over time. It was discovered in 1995 by an Egyptologist who was trying to carbon date a mummified bird with its linen wrappings. When she did this, the linen wrappings actually carbon dated one thousand years younger then the bird. Now, common sense told her that someone didn’t come along in a thousand years and rewrap the bird. Instead, they looked incredibly closely at the linen wrappings and realized that there was a thin sheath of fungus, mold, and mildew that coated the linen. This coating was not removed by the cleaning process, so when they carbon dated the linen, they not only carbon dated the ancient flax, but they also carbon dated the present-day fungus, mold, and mildew…this gave them a skewed date—one thousand years later than what it should have been!
When they looked at the Shroud’s linen, they found that the bio-plastic sheath covered 80% of the Shroud’s surface. It was so obvious that this had a factor in the carbon dating result that the inventor of the AMC method of carbon dating done on the Shroud, Harry Gove, stated that if and when they can find a way to remove the bio-plastic sheath, they will re-offer carbon dating to the Vatican for the Shroud of Turin. To this day, a cleaning process that will fully remove the bio-plastic sheath has not been discovered.
While these arguments seem to give very convincing reasons why this 1988 carbon dating result is incorrect, the media seems to have fallen silent on the issue. Instead of doing what is proper in the scientific community: when carbon dating proposes one date, and an overwhelming body of evidence supports another, the scientist throws out the carbon dating result in favor of the other evidence…the media and many individuals have done the complete opposite. They have thrown out the overwhelming body of evidence supporting one date and origin in favor of the carbon dating result for which a date has many holes and unexplained scientific problems.
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'and sno= 10' at line 1 | 
