Shroud enthusiasts have a tendency to make up their own “tests” that can give the answers they want. It’s an attempt to get over the embarrassment of the C14 test results.
If those results were not accurate, there is a simple remedy: Do them again. And yet, no one seems interested in that. Wonder why.
FFS not this shroud of Turin supreme garbage again.
Someone please explain to me how Jesus being dead and covered in a cloth is supposed to leave an imprint of his beard on it? What mechanism makes a dead body produce a negative image, including your beard, on a piece of cloth?
Also the idea that someone who really believed it was the burial cloth of Jesus, and a holy and miraculous object, wouldn’t dare to try to repair it. How do we know this? Because they don’t dare to let it re-test for C14 using material that didn’t come from the “repaired” part.
It’s all just utter nonsense and crap excuses.
The authenticity of the Shroud was comprehensively refuted here, beginning at 6:54:
It is just geometrically impossible for a cloth resting and wrapping on a face to leave the kind of imprint found on the Shroud of Turin, which has what appears to be a negative 2D image painting-of-a-face-seen-directly-from-the-front on it, rather than an actual imprint of a cloth that would wrap around someone’s face.
This is as comprehensive and conclusive a debunking as it is possible to get. If this does not convince you the shroud is artistic fraud then you have lost your mind.
Ah, you see? That just further proves that this was a miracle!
This is not the paper we have discussed. It is a different view of the data. I am not sure coalescence has anything to do with his hypothesis.
We have discussed several papers, and I’m certain this is one of them. I’ve definitely seen the figures before. Of course coalescence has nothing to do with his hypothesis, but it should. That’s one of the things he doesn’t understand, just as you don’t. All he’s done there is treat the tree as if it time-calibrated (no justification for that), sliced it up, and counted the branches at each slice, then assumed that they’re proportional to the population at that assumed time, and finally come up with an arbitrary ratio between scales (left and right axes in the figures) to make them fit together. This is cargo cult science at its most blatant. And yes, we have talked about this before.
I’ll tell you another thing this has nothing to do with: a recent origin of life, as you have admitted. So why did you bring it up when I asked for your evidence for young life? That is isn’t evidence for anything at all is just an extra problem.
I think you need to read tha paper before you assume what’s in it. No, this is the first time I have read this paper. The papers we discussed before were on pedigree mutation rates and comparing several papers on the subject.
The paper under discussion on this thread was previous cited here.
I read it. Are you claiming that my description is wrong? Are you claiming that anything I’ve said is wrong? If so, make some kind of clear argument backed up by evidence.
And let us once more recall the context, the claim you are supposed to be defending here:
If that isn’t your actual claim, then your actual claim is irrelevant to the subject you were responding to. Why bring it up?
The paper is about how mutation rates that favor a young origin of humans are well correlated with population growth over the last 3k years and slower mutation rates are not.
Compare figure 1 (slower mutation rate) with figure 5 (faster mutation rate) in his paper.
Yes you are over stating your position as an example the use of spin words like cargo cult science for people who disagree with you. You claimed that Jeanson had “no evidence” and this was a false claim.
No. Pedigree mutation rates in extant homo sapiens cannot tell us about the total age of life on Earth.
Nope. It’s about how the number of branches on the tree is supposedly correlated with population growth. Mutation rate is barely relevant; it merely creates a scale that matches the tree to time. And the differences between figures have nothing to do with mutation rates; instead they’re different rootings of the tree. You don’t even understand Jeanson’s claims. Also not a response to my question.
Not a response to my question. And Jeanson truly has no evidence, but you don’t even know what he’s claiming to be evidence, so you are not equipped to tell.
Why is figure 1 and 5 different? Your claim is mutation rate has nothing to do with this?
All you have to do is read the figure captions, which you apparently have not done. The difference is that Fig. 1 uses the “Evo” (=true) root, while Fig. 5 uses the “Alpha” root. That’s all. Same (erroneous) mutation rates. How can you claim to have read that paper?
Why does the alpha root match the population data better then the evo root?
Why are you pointing to a paper that cites the data, when before, you claimed:
Is that true?
There are more then one paper on the subject. The current one we are discussing is new to me.
Have you looked at the data from either?
Why do you ignore every point I made and attempt to distract by raising other points? Why should we care if one garbage curve generated from misunderstood data by a meaningless method matches anything better than another garbage curve? Have you finally completed your journey to young earth creationism?
Can we at least agree that you understood nothing about the figures you were looking at?