Robust statistics on new scientific tests are dating Shroud of Turin on the time of Christ!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

he never made the argument that shroud of turin was real, that's in your imaginings which showcases your own bias. He merely pointed to new statistical information that lends credence to it being from around the time that is linked to the historical Jesus...

Jaden

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then you haven't been paying attention. The only evidence you've brought to the thread is the 1988 radio carbon datings and conclusions made by others of your same faith.

The statistical analyses put forth and the newer understandings about contamination strongly refute those findings. If you don't understand the significance of two standard deviations in statistical analysis, then you have not business even commentating on it.

Of course that may be why you keep trying to change the argument to the historicity of Jesus...lol

Jaden

a reply to: randyvs

YEah I have to laugh at that whole concept. With the problems that early Christianity was giving the Romans prior to Constantinople, you would've thought they would've proven the non-historicity of Jesus then when it would've been much easier to do had he not existed.

The truth is that it's much easier to try and discredit someone's existence several thousand years later when more of the evidence of their factual existence would be gone and that's why there's a modern movement by atheists and humanists to try and discredit the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jaden

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is this tons of evidence??? The ONLY evidence to it being a forgery is the carbon dating which is what is in contention here and probably why you are so adamantly attacking it lol...

Jaden

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you not even understand how logic works????

Even if your premises were 100% accurate, that conclusion is so far from logical it's laughable.

Jaden

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you even READ that article/????

The students used pigment. There have been NO pigments found on the shroud of Turin...lol

Fail again...

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

What is this tons of evidence??? The ONLY evidence to it being a forgery is the carbon dating which is what is in contention here and probably why you are so adamantly attacking it lol...

Indeed. I think the bias is clearly defeated, not in the interest
of my faith. Yet wholly in the interest of those on the fence.
My hope is they will come down on the side that least gambles
their eternal happiness.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

They aren't using carbon dating, they're POINTING OUT FLAWS in the carbon dating that was conducted and using 3 alternate methods of dating to give a statistical average of the likely date.

Try reading the op before spouting off.

Jaden

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Umm no it doesn't fill the hole. You must've not read the part in your article that it says the student uses PIGMENT to recreate it. There was no pigment found on the shroud at all.

As to your ETA: It doesn't matter to us, you're the one who's trying to deny that the person of Jesus didn't exist, it's only by proving it a fake that you can rectify your own belief, because if it's real that kind of puts a kink in your religion there doesn't it???

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then you haven't been paying attention. The only evidence you've brought to the thread is the 1988 radio carbon datings and conclusions made by others of your same faith.

The statistical analyses put forth and the newer understandings about contamination strongly refute those findings. If you don't understand the significance of two standard deviations in statistical analysis, then you have not business even commentating on it.

Bullcrap. My first post in this thread contained a link to the VERY television series on CNN that caused the OP to post this thread in the first place. It also pointed out that the OP's study was conducted in 2013. The CNN show, having JUST premiered, maintains that 1988 testing was accurate.

I have also provided consistent breakdowns of the shroud argument through several different source. So try again.

a reply to: windword

I love FACTs that are anything but. Try reading the article next time. The student used PIGMENTS in the reproduction. There were ZERO pigments found on the shroud...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is this tons of evidence??? The ONLY evidence to it being a forgery is the carbon dating which is what is in contention here and probably why you are so adamantly attacking it lol...

Jaden

How about the fact that the figure on the shroud doesn't look like it should if it were to actually be wrapped around a body? How about the fact that the figure on the shroud is taller than anyone that would have lived in Jesus' time? How about the fact that the figure has a beard and long hair, both of which Jesus wouldn't have had? How about the fact that ALL corresponding science techniques confirm the 1988 test?

Screw that new 2013 test. It doesn't shed new light on anything. It has already been discredited anyways since the material they used for the new test was likely contaminated. It is well established that this shroud is a fake, and your unwillingness to let go makes a fool out of you for believing a stupid forgery for so long.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah cause CNN producers are a credible source for scientific and statistical analysis and they have NO BIAS whatsoever...lol

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: windword

I love FACTs that are anything but. Try reading the article next time. The student used PIGMENTS in the reproduction. There were ZERO pigments found on the shroud...

Jaden

I wouldn't be so cock-sure...

In 1980, using electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction, McCrone found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); the electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone’s results and further proved the image was painted twice — once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah cause CNN producers are a credible source for scientific and statistical analysis and they have NO BIAS whatsoever...lol

Jaden

So why is it ok for the OP to use it as evidence then? He presented the thread to mark new evidence being obtained for the shroud. Well the only "new" evidence is from 2013, so that leaves the show as the only other form of new evidence he can be presenting.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wait, so which is it, that students were able to accurately reproduce the image using pigments on a cloth DRAPED over a LIVING body, or that the image CAN'T represent an actual cloth being draped over a body...

You see, I actually read and analyze the arguments put forth, I don't just assume and make ill informed arguments based on my feelings and beliefs..

Come on, I'm waiting....

Jaden

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He didn't use CNN's conclusions, he used the studies conducted by people who were illustrated in a CNN presentation, if you can't understand the difference there, then I don't know what to say to you...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wait, so which is it, that students were able to accurately reproduce the image using pigments on a cloth DRAPED over a LIVING body, or that the image CAN'T represent an actual cloth being draped over a body...

You see, I actually read and analyze the arguments put forth, I don't just assume and make ill informed arguments based on my feelings and beliefs..

Come on, I'm waiting....

Jaden

Then why are you twisting the argument? The people producing the new shroud are trying to prove that a person living in Medieval times had the technology and equipment to make the shroud. All they had to do was reproduce the shroud as it is, not create an image that would look how it is supposed to look wrapped around a dead body.

a reply to: aorAki

ok so now iron oxide found only in the bloody areas, which have also been shown to be REAL blood equates to pigments for the WHOLE image???

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He didn't use CNN's conclusions, he used the studies conducted by people who were illustrated in a CNN presentation, if you can't understand the difference there, then I don't know what to say to you...

Jaden

Then that is quote mining. CNN presents a story that says it is a forgery. Taking the words and opinions from that broadcast to say the opposite is taking things out of context.