This is true if it was the proper calculation for the event observed. The same blood type calculation is one calculation the same specific blood type is another. The samples are more than the same blood type they are the same rare blood type.
Ignoring the specific blood type creates an error in your calculation.
Itâs irrelevant, since thereâs no need for them specifically to have AB.
The probability they have the same basic blood type is the above-mentioned 37%
I donât need it.
Which reminds me, you still need to either abandon the WAXS dating, show that the sample from Masada they used was much older than the date given, or admit the shroud is a fake.
No, actually, it fixes an error in your⌠well, not your calculation, since we all know by now you couldnât perform a correct one to save your eternal soul⌠but with the setup of your argument, surely.
You did just arbitrarily assume that having a rare blood type on each relic independently correlates with authenticity, when in fact, if anything, specifically the types matching would, irrespective of rarity.
Itâs baffling, really. Everybody is trying to help you out. Everybody is trying to fix your flawed argument for you, to interpret it charitably, and to re-write it into something more coherent and correct. But you just insist on keeping the more inept, less competent variant. Why?
Hi Roy
The waxs method is being developed I agree it has issues but that does not stop it from putting the carbon dating in question. There are other tests that are closer to waxes than the carbon date. Now I am playing whack-a-mole with the carbon dating results 
Skeptics are trying to help out some one supporting the possible authenticity of the shroud 
The above issue with WAXS is not related to the carbon dating results.
But if WAXS has issues, those issues might stop it putting the carbon dating in question, depending on what and how serious the issues are.
If we assume, for no good reason whatsoever, that the WAXS result is correct, can you explain why it is so different from the C- 14 dates obtained by 3 different labs? Recall that the WAXS test was done on the same sample as those tests.
Yours is the extraordinary claim, so you have the burden of proof. And that which has been provided is far, far, from compelling.
On the other hand, dismissing the shroud as being a fake is consistent with the general state of affairs when it comes to relics. The institutionalized corruption associated with relics and indulgences was of an industrial scale and played a central role in what may be regarded as among the most pivotal events in Western history. That the shroud is fake is not at all extraordinary. The analysis and testing which confirms the forgery are already well beyond attention than it deserves.
Hi Faisal
The carbon dating remains the strongest piece of evidence for a forgery. The waxes method is a much less mature method. There are theories why the dates are different I think we should let this play out.
I realise that this needs to be done before skeptics are going to start to consider the authenticity of the shroud. Those who believe in a created universe and the authenticity of the bible are going to see more validating evidence than those who donât.
Hi Ron
Why dismiss it at this point. With your logic there is no need to do more science to validate its possibility of being real. It may be a forgery or may not. No one can replicate the image at this point.
No, thatâs not it. The authenticity of the shroud cannot be salvaged until its consistently-too-young dating can be dismissed, and you have made no progress on that front. What we are helping you out with is formulate a different, irrelevant argument, which you are expressing significantly dumber than it actually should be. We are helping you look less incompetent and you are valiantly opposing that effort.
No, not of it being a forgery. Just for being too young to be the real thing. It could have been forged, or it could have just genuinely been something else. What it could not have been is the real thing, but forgery is not the only alternative. Not everything that wasnât Jesusâ burial cloth is a forgery of Jesusâ burial cloth.
No, they wonât. Theyâll just misinterpret peripheral detail like it is an indication of some part of their position (not in your case, you can scarcely make head or tails of your own position on your better days), and when running low on facts to misinterpret in this manner, theyâll just make some up. Evidence is not subjective. It is not visible to some, but hidden from others. Itâs either there, indicating what it indicates, or it is not.
From the WAXS paper abstract
X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroudâs Linen Sample
The X-ray dating method was applied to a sample of the TS consisting of a thread taken in proximity of the 1988/radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image, near the so-called Raes sample).
The only way around the 14C analysis is that those samples were somehow not representative. That is not the case here, so we know that the WAXS results were in error, or more bluntly, fudged.
Reading the paper, the calibration for WAXS is ridiculous and scant with wildly varying conditions of origin and preservation. The 14C calibration curve is backed by literally tens of thousands of data points.
The major YEC organizations are on record as regarding the shroud as a fake.
I agree that the carbon dating is more compelling evidence than waxes. This does not guarantee the results are correct because environmental conditions or sample selection can skew the results. More research is being done to try and understand how the carbon could be wrong. Letâs stay tuned.
So not following where the evidence leads. It would make more sense to try to understand how the shroud could be made.
What for? And how long for? What if they find no way the date could be wrong, say, ten years from now? What if same is true in twenty? At what point will it be okay to say that to the best of our knowledge the date is solid, and what exactly is different between that day and today? Are you âstaying tunedâ about common ancestry between man and other apes? Are you âstaying tunedâ about the existence of God, and his authorship of your scriptures? What else are you so agnostic about, pray tell? And if this is how you genuinely feel about the Shroud of Turin, then surely it cannot serve as a piece of evidence favouring the historicity of your religious beliefs, can it? Why is there even a debate, if itâs all so up in the air?
Relics, possibility and plausibility
How plausible is it that a relic, that receives vague and/or hearsay mention in an account, then turns up several centuries later?
It is, at least theoretically, possible.
But is it plausible?
Another possibility is that a forger used that vague description as the basis of their forgery, or that somebody finding an object that vaguely resembles the description indulged in a bit of wishful thinking.
Given the number of rival, duplicate relics, this second possibility would seem the more plausible explanation.
Please donât drag all Christians into this. Give the rest of us more credit than that.
Again, we are presented with vague and unsubstantiated (and thus vacuous) claims.
Why is the presence of cotton fibres problematical?
What level of variation in what raw data is at issue? And what statistical analysis shows that these variations are problematical?
What evidence is there that âthe image is too thin for this theory to be viableâ?
And for all these claims what reliable source do you have for making them?
Without answers to these questions, there is no basis for claiming âreasonable doubtâ.
LIke Answers in Genesis, for instance?