Turin shroud

[Phoenix]

BBC NEWS | Europe | Scientist reproduces Turin shroud

I rather like the quote there:

"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me."
Luigi Garlaschelli

Thoughts?

[Chevalier Sombre]

Needn't really be said this will be challenged, it's a relic of religious significance to millions of people, and whenever religion's involved it's always a touchy subject.

Of course, all this really proves (if it all holds up) is that the cloth could easily be a forgery or nothing really that special, but that alone says a lot.

[Gildragon]

This doesn't reallly prove or disprove anything.

I don't personally think that the shroud is what people claim it to be, but it could be.


[quote=Luigi Garlaschelli"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me."[/QUOTE]

ehh. Carbon Dating is inaccurate anyways

[Phoenix]

Of course, all this really proves (if it all holds up) is that the cloth could easily be a forgery or nothing really that special, but that alone says a lot.

True, but I thought it an interesting article regardless.

ehh. Carbon Dating is inaccurate anyways

Dude, I'm pretty sure you don't know what carbon dating is =/

[Gildragon]

Well I'm pretty sure I do and the fact that carbon dating has ben used to date living beings but still came up with them being dead for thousands of years kinda kills its credibility.

also carbon dating is only still semi accurate for things that are withing a few thousand years old. even though the cap for carbon dating is 30,000, dating after even a few thousand can turn out to be highly inaccurate given as we dont' know the exact amounts of the right kind of Carbon-12 or Carbon-14

[Phoenix]

While this isn't a thread about carbon dating, I suppose it's kind of in-topic.

Well I'm pretty sure I do and the fact that carbon dating has ben used to date living beings but still came up with them being dead for thousands of years kinda kills its credibility.

I do hope you're not talking about the reservoir problem (the example where old carbon affixed itself to living snail shells), because, since this is well-known and watched out for in dating, that would be pretty ignorant of you.

also carbon dating is only still semi accurate for things that are withing a few thousand years old. even though the cap for carbon dating is 30,000, dating after even a few thousand can turn out to be highly inaccurate given as we dont' know the exact amounts of the right kind of Carbon-12 or Carbon-14

Correction; the cap for carbon dating is 60,000 years. And we don't know the exact amounts of the right kind? What in heaven are you talking about?

Lastly, Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buuuut since Carbon Dating is a fake, they're probably hoaxes, and these were probably made in the Middle Ages, right?

[Gildragon]

60,000? odd not what I read.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Buuuut since Carbon Dating is a fake, they're probably hoaxes, and these were probably made in the Middle Ages, right?

I'm sorry I miscommunicated.

I'm not saying its fake.

Its inaccurate. like wikipedia theres a chance what you read might be true, but if you look into it further theres a chance it might not be true.


I'm not trying to do away with carbon dating, just merely stating that it cannot be trusted as accurate.
IE in the example carbon dating might be able to give us a basis for guessing, but an item could be easily drastically lower or higher then what the estimate is.


in your article it says:

Tests 20 years ago dated the fabric to between 1260 and 1390, but believers say it is an authentic image of Christ.

Since because of the varying inaccuracies of carbon dating this number could be off by a thousand or so years. (which isnt' unheard of) which would have been around the Time of Jesus.



I'm not trying to defend the Shroud of Tourin. I'm not saying its actuallly Jesus.. I mean lets say for arguments sake it came from the area he was supposed to be in. it could have been any nazarene man considering they all had long hair. etc (reasons why it might not be actually Jesus)

I'm also not trying to do away with carbon dating.
Just theres plenty of room to doubt it. it might be right, it might not be.



Thus my original statement. this doesnt prove or disprove anything.

[Phoenix]

I'm sorry I miscommunicated.

I'm not saying its fake.

Its inaccurate. like wikipedia theres a chance what you read might be true, but if you look into it further theres a chance it might not be true.

Then what you do is look at the references (ie. the other dozens of other datings we have).

I'm not trying to do away with carbon dating, just merely stating that it cannot be trusted as accurate.
IE in the example carbon dating might be able to give us a basis for guessing, but an item could be easily drastically lower or higher then what the estimate is.

Since because of the varying inaccuracies of carbon dating this number could be off by a thousand or so years. (which isnt' unheard of) which would have been around the Time of Jesus.

That is an outright lie.

"The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0 - 6,000 yrs BP) and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.[13]".

I'm also not trying to do away with carbon dating.
Just theres plenty of room to doubt it. it might be right, it might not be.

You're technically correct, in the same way a meteor might or might not hit you in the head right now. However, since the vast majority of datings that have been corroborated with other evidence (and when they aren't, the reason is clear) turn out to be accurate, it's not the 50/50 chance you seem to imply.

To say that there's plenty of room to doubt is, at best, naive and, at worst, dishonest. Of course we should always be skeptical, that's a healthy attitude to have, but don't play it off as if there's any serious doubt about its effectiveness, because there isn't.

[Candy Man]

"The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure."

How complicated did he think burial procedures were for a moneyless convict?

To me, this just reiterates that Jesus and his friends were just average joes. I don't think the shroud is legit, but don't think that proves God doesn't exist. Especially when you used a very obvious test

[Phoenix]

How complicated did he think burial procedures were for a moneyless convict?

Dude, he's saying that a hoax could be made inexpensively, not that the burial was inexpensive.

To me, this just reiterates that Jesus and his friends were just average joes. I don't think the shroud is legit, but don't think that proves God doesn't exist. Especially when you used a very obvious test

Who the hell is talking about proving God doesn't exist?

[Candy Man]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Who the hell is talking about proving God doesn't exist?

The Italians who paid him to do it

[Phoenix]

The Italians who paid him to do it

Oh, they said it proved God doesn't exist? I missed that part. Link? Because as far I understood it, all this proved is that the shroud could have easily been made with the materials of the time. Nothing more, nothing less.

The carbon dating, on the other hand =/

Incidentally;

"Money has no odor," he said. "This was done scientifically. If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am."

Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin - Yahoo! News

[Ulti]

I would have love to see the two Shrouds side by side so we can really seem how close he got it. I guess I can kind of see the point that this merely shows how frauds can be made. If you want to interpret it as the Shroud has a possibility of being fake, then that is your opinion. It certainly should draw some questions at the very least.

[ikkuh2]

Every measurement is inaccurate, it's the first thing i learned in physics, however physicists also determine the inaccuracy, the thing is that you never find them in the news. Even so radiometric dating, carbon is too damn specific, is prettyr accurate, there are isotopes that are perfect for lots of timescales. But even so, can you give an estimate of how inaccurate any holy book, or in this case the bible, is, i bet you can't.

[PLR]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Oh, they said it proved God doesn't exist? I missed that part. Link? Because as far I understood it, all this proved is that the shroud could have easily been made with the materials of the time. Nothing more, nothing less.

The carbon dating, on the other hand =/

Incidentally;



Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin - Yahoo! News

Don't you just love it when everything that comes out of an Atheist's or Agnostic's mouth is interpreted as some way to disprove god?