From: theirony2013@gmail.com   
      
   On 2025-12-26 23:44, JTEM wrote:   
   >   
   > Charcoal is carbon dated all the time.   
   >   
   > Charcoal is, what? Burnt wood?   
   >   
   > Burning something doesn't appear to alter the age. In fact, the   
   > big problem with burning wood is that it exposes the core --   
   > burn away the younger, outer surface -- so the dating is going   
   > to be older than the outer part.   
   >   
   > Trees can grow for hundreds of years before they're chopped down,   
   > and the inner core of the wood is the oldest part....   
   >   
   > Nothing in the practice of dating wood/charcoal suggests that   
   > a scorched -- not even burnt by scorched -- part of the shroud   
   > should test as significantly younger than the rest.   
   >   
   > Google:  does charcoal dating match wood dating   
   >   
   > So the claim of the Steven is as follows:   
   >   
   > #1.  Shroud was burned, parts thereof.   
   >   
   > #2.  Burning cloth yields a significantly younger Carbon 14   
   > date than the unburned portions.   
   >   
   > #3.  The dating C14 dating of the shroud is do to the testing   
   > being conducted on parts that were burned instead of unburned   
   > parts.   
   >   
   > As it turns out fire isn't new, so what we need is a real life   
   > example of a cloth that was burned yielding a significantly   
   > younger date than could be confidently established through   
   > other methods.   
   >   
   > A work around might be, say, ash from cloth destroyed in a fire   
   > when the date of the fire can be confidently established by other   
   > means.   
   >   
   > Does any actual examples exist, or are the claims surrounding   
   > the shroud nonsense?   
      
   Isn't Jesus best accepted on faith?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)