Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- From http://shroud.com/nature.htm
- The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidencefor the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

- That statement is misleading.
- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...
Click to expand...

Talking of scales, as we were earlier, there's one they developed in Bristol that would seem to be the appropriate one to rate this post.
 
Somebody send me a PM if this thread advance past the point of Jabba ad hominem agaisnt scientist and goes beyond its utter ignorance.

Or send me a PM if there is something very humoristic going on.

This thread and subsequent one are on ignore baring the above.
 
Aepervius said:
Somebody send me a PM if this thread advance past the point of Jabba ad hominem agaisnt scientist and goes beyond its utter ignorance.

Or send me a PM if there is something very humoristic going on.

This thread and subsequent one are on ignore baring the above.
Click to expand...

OK.
 
Craig4 said:
How about the artist bought flax linen from a bolt that started life at one end of the Silk Road and ended up in the other, collecting pollen along the way?
Click to expand...

Quite possible. The C14 test assumes nothing what so ever about the origin of the fabric, it only tells us the time the cotton was growing.

I don't know if it is possible to make a DNA analysis of the cotton as such and get some information about where it was grown.

However, analyzing any deposits on it in the form of general DNA, pollen etc. is only going to lead to confusion. No matter the origin, that cloth has been moved around, displayed, and handled so much that practically anything could be on it.

Hans
 
wollery said:
The maths is exactly as it should be, and refers to the whole shroud, because the sample area is representative of the whole shroud, no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it otherwise.
Click to expand...

OK, let's make this clear, because it can be a bit confusing, and anyhow I'm sure Jabba will latch on to it sooner or later:

The statistical math refers to the confidence of the test result. It means that there is a 95% probability that the real age of the fabric is within the stated age range, in this case AD1260 - AD1390. In the remaining 5% possibilities it might be somewhat outside that range, but the odds against it being over a thousand years outside the range are astronomical.

The whole idea of doing such a test, and an absolute prerequisite for reporting such a result is that the sample must be representative. You cannot determine this with mathematics, all you can do is choose the sample location with care.

Thus, the position (but not the size) of the samples is indeed the weakest spot of the C14 test, and if I were to advice Jabba on anything other than to forget about this and get a life, it would be to try to attack the confidence of the samples.

This is, however, also a hopeless task; the sample site was carefully decided on by people with relevant expertice, the sampling was carefully documented, and since it left holes in the shroud, it could easily be re-examined. Furthermore, none of the persons involved had any motivation to not make the samples as representative as possible.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
OK, let's make this clear, because it can be a bit confusing, and anyhow I'm sure Jabba will latch on to it sooner or later:

The statistical math refers to the confidence of the test result. It means that there is a 95% probability that the real age of the fabric is within the stated age range, in this case AD1260 - AD1390. In the remaining 5% possibilities it might be somewhat outside that range, but the odds against it being over a thousand years outside the range are astronomical.

The whole idea of doing such a test, and an absolute prerequisite for reporting such a result is that the sample must be representative. You cannot determine this with mathematics, all you can do is choose the sample location with care.

Thus, the position (but not the size) of the samples is indeed the weakest spot of the C14 test, and if I were to advice Jabba on anything other than to forget about this and get a life, it would be to try to attack the confidence of the samples.

This is, however, also a hopeless task; the sample site was carefully decided on by people with relevant expertice, the sampling was carefully documented, and since it left holes in the shroud, it could easily be re-examined. Furthermore, none of the persons involved had any motivation to not make the samples as representative as possible.

Hans
Click to expand...

Well said! I would only add that the CIQ has, in fact, been re-examined, with predictable results:

www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/

The challenge, of course, is getting certain sidonists to read, much less understand, the explanations.
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- I respond to only your first Q/C. Sometimes I read the rest; sometimes, I don't.
Click to expand...

Which is to say you maintain your belief in authenticity by sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loudly to avoid encountering adverse facts.
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- I respond to only your first Q/C. Sometimes I read the rest; sometimes, I don't.
Click to expand...

Jabba, I make very short posts, and I only include what I find essential. It is insulting that I have written a reply with an explanation and you evidently ignore the explanation.

Can I conclude that you accept that the C14 test is scientifically sound?

Hans
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom