• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

Brian2

Veteran Member
Cite another source please, not a link to a YouTube video. I can get a YouTube video proving mermaids are real in a few seconds, it is not a reliable or credible source.

Edit. 0:58 seconds into your video, "Elite scientists have stated "we are dealing with two very different dating techniques, that have produced significantly different results, when this happens caution is required before final conclusions are reached"

Now have you shown any caution here? You immediately leaped on the conclusion, even making the bizarre assumption it was proof for a deity.

If you want to investigate further then go to the site of the youtube and click on the links in Resources, below the video.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The ``five sigma rule'' used to discover the Higgs Boson is the
reliance on Sufficient Reasoning. Why? It is scientific to accept (beyond any doubt) the
existence of the Higgs Boson (or any effect or particle in Particle Physics)
if the probability of a mistake is less than the five sigma rule value.
Firstly this redirecting of the point is called whataboutism, as it has no actual relevance, if you are actually trying to suggest that your conclusions here, namely that the new date should be accepted prima facie, but worse that this date means it is proof of the supernatural claims assigned the relic in question, and a deity, are comparable to the scientific research you cited, then I don't believe you, as the physicist working on that research would never simply reach a conclusion based on nothing but assumptions as you have done here again, though they might use assumptions to direct research, which isn't remotely comparable. FWIW no scientist worthy of the name would make such an obvious false equivalence, and certainly not a genius.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
You're going to have to explain why you've just offered me my own link back in response, and if you'd bothered to read the explanation of the law you'd see where I got its conclusion from.

The result of this new dating technique differs from another established technique, and your own video link pointed out that scientific experts advised caution before reaching a conclusion, you have shown no such caution. The date of the shroud is not evidence of anything supernatural per se, and nor is it evidence of a deity per se, you have simply assumed these conclusions, thus your conclusion is without ground or reasoning, as you haven't sufficient reason for those conclusions, ipso facto your conclusions violate the 4th law of logic that you yourself cited.

But I have not lied as well. Some Creationist can lie to save an atheist. But I have provided all facts: peer-reviewed paper, sufficient reasoning principle.

I never remotely implied you had lied, and I have no idea what your creationist reference means or why you think it is significant to this discourse. Peer review is a basic requirement, we also have peer review to confirm the original dating that this new technique differs from, again then your own linked video specifically said that experts during peer review said we should use caution about reaching any conclusion about this new date, your posts here do not exhibit any such caution in reaching conclusions. Violating the 4th law of logic you cited.

I understand your eager bias, but as I said it is palpable in your claims here, as indeed it is elsewhere, the hubris is too obvious to avoid.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
If you want to investigate further then go to the site of the youtube and click on the links in Resources, below the video.
Yes I did watch the video, the commentator stated plainly that since this new technique disagreed with a previously peer reviewed dating procedure, they advised caution before reaching any conclusion about this new date.

Also the date itself don't represent objective evidence for the supernatural claims assigned the relic, let alone for an extant deity, as the threat trumpeted in the OP.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You are taken their words out of context. At the start of the paper was caution, then came arguments, and the paper concludes with 100 % certainty, that the age is first AD.

So it's bull poop then, no scientific evaluation will ever claim 100% certainty
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Wrong. The authors will never blaspheme own results. It is the job of trolls.

So its not science then, they do not follow the scientific method.

Edit: and i just checked WAXS dating is no more than 10% accuracy.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Sheldon said:
experts during peer review said we should use caution
You are taken their words out of context. At the start of the paper was caution, then came arguments, and the paper concludes with 100 % certainty, that the age is first AD.

The context wasn't mine, it was the narrator of the video you yourself linked. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain, no credible scientists or anyone with a cursory understanding of its methods would make such an embarrassing claim.

The conclusion here disputes an existing one, and uses a different and new method of testing. Until the different conclusions are fully understood the peer review scientists suggested caution before reaching any conclusions about this result. Yet you have done precisely the opposite, and here again using ludicrous hyperbole like 100% certain.
 
Top