ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 10th August 2012, 05:24 AM   #2761
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
You guys,

- The debate at the moment amounts to the 2nd round of our “re-weave bout.”

- In the model of debate I’m trying to develop, a “round” isn’t over till it’s over -- i.e. we don’t need to finish a round in order to move on to the next… Basically, either side is always free to go back, re-new the specific issue and change its mind.
- And also, the number of rounds is unlimited…



- Our first round was dedicated to the rough homogeneity between the trace elements found on the greater Shroud, and those found on the Raes sample -- and the implications of that finding upon the expected trace elements of the C14 sample.
- In that first round, I concede that the apparent “rough” homogeneity of trace elements between the Raes sample and the larger cloth is, in fact, significant evidence AGAINST the “patch,” or “invisible re-weave,” hypothesis -- Antonacci seems to know what he’s talking about. But then, so far, 1) there doesn’t seem to be any trace element measurements on the C14 sample itself; 2) we’re unable to find Raes’ actual numbers so as to see how they relate to the standard deviations within the two sets of data; 3) we don’t know what “rough” means; and, 4) we don’t know to what extent trace elements tend to vary between different bodies of water -- nor specifically between bodies of water in 16th century Europe and 1st century Palestine.
- Consequently, even though this rough homogeneity does, in my opinion, make for significant evidence against the patch theory -- we can’t really nail it down just yet. To me, there is still significant room for doubt. In my opinion, you guys ARE WINNING the first round -- but then, the first round isn’t over …



- The second round of our re-weave bout has been dedicated to how a patch could possibly have made it past all the different experts examining it prior to the cutting, prior to the testing and prior to the conservation efforts. So far, the following is the best I can do for an explanation. This round seems more like a “draw” to me so far, but that could be my bias speaking.

1. We still don’t know what tests were used -- nor where they were used -- in the examinations (prior to the cutting, prior to the testing and prior to the conservation efforts) wherein the sample area was accepted as part of the original cloth.

2. There were all sorts of emotionality afoot amongst the scientists preceding the cutting; the protocols were egregiously abbreviated; and, after all those years working out the details, it still took Gonella and Riggi 2 hours to decide exactly where to cut.

3. So far, it seems to me that Flury-Lemberg is the only “examiner” that needs to be taken seriously. The rest, even Ghiberti, seem little more than “on-lookers.” As for the guys at the C14 labs, there is no indication that they were on the lookout for evidence of a patch -- and personally, I have no idea whether or not any of their various tests would have raised any red flags.

4. Apparently, Flury-Lemberg and Joe Marino are not referring to the same process re invisible re-weave. F-L is referring to “inweaving” (See http://shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf), whereas JM is referring to “French weaving.” (See #’s 39 and 43 from http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, and http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf.)

5. The kind of repair to which JM refers is claimed to be truly invisible under a microscope, and also from the back of the cloth. The kind of repair to which F-L refers is said to be visible under a microscope on the front side and obvious to the naked eye on the back side.

6. In her examinations, F-L would have expected any re-weaving to be obvious from the back. Perhaps, in those examinations of the cloth, never seeing anything obvious on the back, she naturally concluded that there was no patch, and looked no further…

7. All of us are subject to bias -- as are our conclusions. Surely JM wants to believe that his earlier conclusions re the invisible patch were correct. F-L would probably have similar desires re her earlier conclusions.


--- Jabba
How did the weavers manage to fuse the ends of the threads together so that the connection could not be detected?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2012, 07:06 AM   #2762
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...6. In her examinations, F-L would have expected any re-weaving to be obvious from the back. Perhaps, in those examinations of the cloth, never seeing anything obvious on the back, she naturally concluded that there was no patch, and looked no further…
This scenario is talking about Flury-Lemberg, who directed the restoration of the TS in 2002.
Can anyone possibly imagine the restoration team of the TS would not notice, document and write up ANYTHING they found on the TS on either side of the linen?

To make Jabba's idea plausible, we're obliged to imagine Flury-Lemberg is either incompetent or part of some sort of TS anti-authenticity conspiracy financed by the Vatican.
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2012, 08:45 AM   #2763
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,924
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
How did the weavers manage to fuse the ends of the threads together so that the connection could not be detected?
How else? More God-magic.............
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2012, 09:18 AM   #2764
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
The Blood

Jabba, #2530:
- The following list of 20, are the CLAIMS I have made about the blood on the Shroud. #11 is especially important in that in order to paint the stains, the artist would have to paint the serum clot retraction rings -- that he couldn’t see without modern technology -- around all the wounds.
- Don't worry about the other claims for now, I just wanted to sort of put #11 "in context."
- We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud, and that it was not painted there.)…
#11. All the wounds (150 or so), photographed, enlarged and studied under a microscope, show the slightly depressed centers, raised edges and serum characteristic of the “syneresis” occurring when blood clots form and then retract. This cannot be seen with the naked eye.

Squeegee, #2531:
Let's assume that all of this is true. So what?

Jabba, #2536:
[This means that]
1) The blood was not painted on.
2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.
3) Then, if the Shroud is somehow a forgery, and was forged within the time frame indicated by the carbon dating, someone had to be deliberately crucified for a piece of art and by an artist that knew how to produce the imprint.
4) In other words -- surely, the carbon dating is wrong.

Dinwar, #2538:
#4 doesn't follow. We're talking the MIDDLE AGES here, Jabba--a time period that's infamous for its brutality. I mean yeah, they weren't curcifying people every day, but Christians other than Jesus have been crucified.
#4 is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Blood on the shroud--even blood matching the descriptions of Christ's wounds in the Bible--does not prove that the shroud is Jesus' burial cloth. All it proves is that someone recieved the wounds Christ is said to have recieved. And considering this is the most widely known torture ON THE PLANET, this is hardly an unlikely situation.

Jabba, #2563
- It also seems to prove that the carbon dating is wrong…
- For one thing -- as far as I know -- such an explanation has never been suggested by any publication about the Shroud...
- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do (we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work), and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body...

Dinwar, #2565:
...First, this is a lie. It's been proven in this thread that 1) we CAN reproduce the image...

Jabba, #2585:
- As far as I can tell, you guys just claim that it has been duplicated. Show me where you have proven that it has.
- And further, show me where they've used a dead body to do it.

Pgwenthold, #2590:
I don't understand why it would be necessary to use a dead body. If the image has been duplicated, it matters not whether there was a dead body being used.

And now:
Pgwenthold,
- If it can be shown that the image on the Shroud is in fact the imprint of a dead body, in order to produce a real duplicate of the Shroud, the modern artist/scientist responsible would need to be able to show the same thing. And, proceeding from Squeegee’s #2531 above, we’re assuming in this brief discourse that (hypothetically, at least) it CAN be shown that the image on the Shroud is in fact the imprint of a dead body.


--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2012, 09:26 AM   #2765
Alex Cured
Critical Thinker
 
Alex Cured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 251
To paraphrase a certain sceptic, Jabba: If the shroud was made with divine powers, then they did it the hard way
__________________
59 dislike this!
Alex Cured is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2012, 09:31 AM   #2766
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
[i]- The following list of 20, are the CLAIMS I have made about the blood on the Shroud. ...
Has Jabba forgotten that we're discussing the invisible weave?
That we've established the stains are by no means established as of being blood?
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2012, 11:30 AM   #2767
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If it can be shown that the image on the Shroud is in fact the imprint of a dead body, in order to produce a real duplicate of the Shroud, the modern artist/scientist responsible would need to be able to show the same thing. And, proceeding from Squeegee’s #2531 above, we’re assuming in this brief discourse that (hypothetically, at least) it CAN be shown that the image on the Shroud is in fact the imprint of a dead body.
No, no, no, no, no. Don't use my phrasing of one question to you as being an indicator that from there on in we're going to be arguing as if some invented hypothetical is true. If you want us to discuss things as if a certain premise is true, then you're going to have to prove that that premise is true. And you'll have to do so with real evidence.

I phrased that one question that way in order to highlight how, even if what you were saying was true, that it wouldn't be an argument in favour of authenticity. None of your subsequent posts have shown that it would be. But, even if they had, it would still be irrelevant because for any of it to matter, first you have to prove that the initial premise is true.

And, even were you to do that it still wouldn't matter, because you have yet to disprove the C14 dating. And without doing that, there is no debate to be had whatsoever.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 04:47 AM   #2768
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Emotionality

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
No, no, no, no, no.
Squeegee,
- Doesn't emotionality reduce the credibility of a scientist's argument?
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 04:57 AM   #2769
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Correct me if I'm wrong, but scientists' arguments are based on data and it's interpretation.
When may we expect a rebuttal to the invisible weave debunking?

Added:
Could we keep to the subject of the invisible weave, please?
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba

Last edited by pakeha; 11th August 2012 at 05:02 AM. Reason: clarification
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:12 AM   #2770
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- Doesn't emotionality reduce the credibility of a scientist's argument?
--- Jabba
The credibility of an argument can be varied by the logic and evidence only.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:26 AM   #2771
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Has Jabba forgotten that we're discussing the invisible weave?


I think you're being far too kind in attributing it to forgetfulness.


Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
That we've established the stains are by no means established as of being blood?


I reckon the stains were caused by using the shroud to wrap fish.


__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:34 AM   #2772
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
No, no, no, no, no.


Squeegee,
- Doesn't emotionality reduce the credibility of a scientist's argument?
--- Jabba


This meaningless question has nothing to do with what Squeegee wrote, either before or after you snipped 95% of it.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:02 AM   #2773
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Mapping Debate

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...Don't use my phrasing of one question to you as being an indicator that from there on in we're going to be arguing as if some invented hypothetical is true...
Squeegee,
- I "blamed" you because I was responding to #2590 in which Pgwenthold was referring back to your hypothetical. In writing #2764, it seemed like I needed to give the background involved in my answer -- but looking at things now, I probably should have left out the background. #2590, in which Pgwenthold said, "I don't understand why it would be necessary to use a dead body. If the image has been duplicated, it matters not whether there was a dead body being used," should have been enough by itself.
- And what I probably should have said was that a 'duplicate' -- that didn't require a dead body to produce it -- wouldn't have been a real duplicate if we can show that the Shroud image does require a dead body.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:11 AM   #2774
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,867
I'll bite on Jabba's hypothetical.

Let's suppose, purely hypothetically, that it could be shown that the only way to produce the shroud image was by using a real dead body of someone who's been scourged and crucified. It hasn't, but let's say for the sake of argument that it has.

Let's also suppose, again, purely hypothetically, that it has been proven beyond doubt that the "blood" on the shroud is real blood, and even more, real human blood.

I'll go one more. Let's suppose that the invisible patch really exists and was created using the Frenway method that Jabba linked to.

So what we have (hypothetically) is proof that the image on the cloth was made by wrapping it around a scourged and crucified body, the blood is genuine human blood and there is an invisible patch.

These are the points that Jabba has been arguing over the minutiae of for months.

And yet, even with all of these given, it still doesn't contradict the C14 dating. The image could be of someone scourged and crucified in the 14th century, the blood could come from said 14th century body, and the Frenway invisible weaving technique uses threads from the original cloth, which maintains the age of the patch as the same as the rest of the cloth.


Jabba, unless you can show why the C14 dating is wrong all of your arguments are moot.

All of them.

Nothing that you are currently arguing contradicts the C14 dates.

None of it.

It matters not one iota whether the image was made using a real body, because dead humans aren't that difficult to come by, particularly in the 14th century.
It is irrelevant if the blood is genuine human blood, because human blood is incredibly easy to get hold of.
It makes no difference if there is actually an invisible patch, because the only way to make such a patch that stays invisible over several hundred years is to use threads from the original cloth.

The only way you can possibly make any headway is to give a scientifically valid reason why the C14 is wrong.

Everything else is worthless bluster and does nothing to further your case. In fact it just serves to highlight your inability to counter the C14 date.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:18 AM   #2775
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Real evidence

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...And you'll have to do so with real evidence...
Squeegee,
- Who decides what real evidence is?
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:35 AM   #2776
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Hypotheticals

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...If you want us to discuss things as if a certain premise is true, then you're going to have to prove that that premise is true...
Squeegee,
- I meant to address this earlier...
- For one thing, hypotheticals can be very useful in a discussion whether they be true or not. For another thing, in order to validly include a hypothetical to actually argue a case, the proponent does not need to prove that the hypothetical is true -- he merely needs to show that it's a reasonable possibility.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:35 AM   #2777
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
No interest in the truth whatsoever

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- Who decides what real evidence is?
--- Jabba


Reality decides.


Real evidence can withstand scrutiny.
eg. C14 analysis.
Pretend evidence cannot withstand scrutiny.
eg. The faith-based mumbo-jumbo that you've been posting here ever since you started.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:42 AM   #2778
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Red herrings

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- I meant to address this earlier...

<snip>


Why are you no longer addressing the flaws in the invisible weaving hypothetical?

It's almost as if you're ducking and weaving in order to avoid actually addressing anything whilst at the same time creating the impression that you're taking part in a meaningful discussion.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:44 AM   #2779
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...And, even were you to do that it still wouldn't matter, because you have yet to disprove the C14 dating. And without doing that, there is no debate to be had whatsoever.
Squeegee,
- No.
- In order to have meaningful debate, I merely need to raise reasonable doubt -- the more listeners with whom I can raise it, the more meaningful the debate.
- Hopefully, there is someone out there whose doubt has been raised a little.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:48 AM   #2780
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,855
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- No.
- In order to have meaningful debate, I merely need to raise reasonable doubt -- the more listeners with whom I can raise it, the more meaningful the debate.
- Hopefully, there is someone out there whose doubt has been raised a little.
--- Jabba
Well, as someone out here, I can reassure you that any doubts I may have had have been fully assuaged by your failure to raise anything resembling a reasonable doubt.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:51 AM   #2781
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Two sides

Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Why are you no longer addressing the flaws in the invisible weaving hypothetical?

It's almost as if you're ducking and weaving in order to avoid actually addressing anything whilst at the same time creating the impression that you're taking part in a meaningful discussion.
Akhenaten,
- As noted various times above, the two sides need equal chance to direct the conversation. I choose to converse about the blood issue.
- I'll get back to the carbon dating "momentarily."
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 07:10 AM   #2782
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
Not even wrong

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Akhenaten,
- As noted various times above, the two sides need equal chance to direct the conversation.


As has been pointed out to you every time you've made this ridiculous analogy to the adversarial setting of a court room - balderdash.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I choose to converse about the blood issue.


Of course you do. It offers far more scope to introduce red herrings like artists crucifying people and mysterious experts in the analysis of the results of Roman flagellation.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'll get back to the carbon dating "momentarily."


Yep, as soon as you feel that you've been backed into yet another corner with the bluuuuuurd you'll return to some variation of the problems you've made up for the C14 testing such as invisible reweaving, contamination, emotionalistification, etcetera, etcetera - complete, of course, with the vapid post titles.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 11th August 2012 at 07:20 AM. Reason: spelling
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 07:11 AM   #2783
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,768
You are approaching this as if dating the shroud or determining whether it is the image of a 1st century crucified body was a matter of opinion. It's not. It's a matter of fact and there is no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that you can cast on the carbon dating.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 07:16 AM   #2784
slyjoe
Graduate Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins
Posts: 1,674
slyjoe has a birthday
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- No.
- In order to have meaningful debate, I merely need to raise reasonable doubt -- the more listeners with whom I can raise it, the more meaningful the debate.
- Hopefully, there is someone out there whose doubt has been raised a little.
--- Jabba
My doubt has been raised a lot - to wit, I doubt shroud believers will every engage honestly.

And thanks to the many posters in this thread that have provided some fascinating information regarding the history, background, and scientific approaches to examinations of the shroud.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 07:25 AM   #2785
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- Who decides what real evidence is?
--- Jabba

If it's scientific "evidence", then it's independent scientists who decide via the process of peer-reviewed research publications.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 07:27 AM   #2786
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...in order to validly include a hypothetical to actually argue a case, the proponent does not need to prove that the hypothetical is true -- he merely needs to show that it's a reasonable possibility...
Argue a case?
What is there to argue here?
The provenance of a 14th century artefact?
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba

Last edited by pakeha; 11th August 2012 at 07:29 AM.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 07:44 AM   #2787
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,924
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jabba, #2530: <snippage of much repeated nonsense>
--- Jabba
You have utterly failed to show that the shroud actually has blood on it.
You have utterly failed to show any reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating.

To summarise;



It's a medieval fake.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 04:04 PM   #2788
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- No.
- In order to have meaningful debate, I merely need to raise reasonable doubt -- the more listeners with whom I can raise it, the more meaningful the debate.
- Hopefully, there is someone out there whose doubt has been raised a little.
--- Jabba
I thought it was all about faith.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 04:35 PM   #2789
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,427
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
...
- Hopefully, there is someone out there whose doubt has been raised a little.
--- Jabba
Frankly, it was a long shot that you were going to accomplish that in this thread. All the participants, excluding yourself, seem to be regular JREF forum participants which almost always have a skeptical view of all things supernatural. It was very unlikely that they would move towards any hypothesis that involved either supernatural aspects, tie-ins to an historical Jesus that many suspect may not have even existed or wildly unlikely theories that look like the ad-hoc creations of true-believers when overwhelming evidence that they are wrong becomes available.

In short you would have needed to find actual affirmative evidence of the possibility that the shroud could have been created by wrapping it around a corpse or that the shroud dated to the first century. Or you would have needed to have found evidence that undermined any of the evidence put forth to establish that the shroud was created through human artifice in approximately the fourteenth century.

As it is the opposite has happened. The evidence and arguments in this thread put forth provide overwhelming evidence that the shroud is a fourteenth century artifact. And as things stand right now, I suspect that every person that has participated in this thread with the possible exception of yourself, has at least as strong a view that the shroud is not the burial shroud of Jesus that they did before the thread began.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:50 PM   #2790
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Akhenaten,
- As noted various times above, the two sides need equal chance to direct the conversation. I choose to converse about the blood issue.
- I'll get back to the carbon dating "momentarily."
--- Jabba
No. Again, that's more akin to a legal argument (actually, it's not even that--it's a POLITICAL debate). This isn't law, this isn't politics--it's science. The principle here isn't "Both sides need equal time". The principle here is "Put up or shut up". In other words, if you can't provide positive evidence for your idea, you don't get to talk. And I want to emphasize that "you" here is general (the French "vous" rather than "tu")--that's the foundational rule of science, which EVERYONE has to play by. This includes, though you are trying your level best to wiggle out of it, you.

In this entire thread you've not provided a single shred of evidence that has stood up to careful analysis. Your best argument was that there was an invisible patch (after 20 years, I want to add), and that was disproven by a simple Google search of "Invisible Patch" and reading what the people who do this for a living (ie, the experts) have to say. So you haven't provided any evidence. After this long in the thread, we can completely dismiss you AND BE CORRECT IN DOING SO. That's in caps because it's important--you've had more than long enough, posted more than enough nonsense; at this point we can conclude safely and with full justification that you have no evidence. Thus, from a scientific standpoint, nothing you have to say matters.

I'm saying this in an attempt to teach you the principles you're ignoring, and why people are getting frustrated with you. This discussion isn't some new thing that requires a whole new way of examining the world. It follows a well-established pattern.

Quote:
- Who decides what real evidence is?
Evidence is facts, and facts are incontrovertable because if you doubt them you can go and look at them. It's a tricky thing for scientists to learn, but an essential one. For example, the shroud is a fact--no one can doubt it exists, without descending into naked sophestry. The image exists--again, no one can doubt this and be rational. The threads of the shroud are data--if someone doubts them, the threads are there, they can be examined.

A fact is some physical thing--a bone, or a fiber, or a particle, or a speed, or a wavelength, or a composition. Anything beyond that is an interpretation. And while facts cannot be questioned rationally, interpretations are fair game.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:54 PM   #2791
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
As it is the opposite has happened. The evidence and arguments in this thread put forth provide overwhelming evidence that the shroud is a fourteenth century artifact. And as things stand right now, I suspect that every person that has participated in this thread with the possible exception of yourself, has at least as strong a view that the shroud is not the burial shroud of Jesus that they did before the thread began.
Mine confidence that the shroud is a fraud has actually grown thanks to this thread. It was never something I'd looked into very closely until this thread, and I've avoided taking any firm stand because I couldn't defend it. Now I have enough knowledge to be able to support the conclusion that the shroud is fake, so I can take a firm stand on the issue.

So Jabba's tactic has, in at least one case, backfired horribly.

Also, the invisible patch thing is really cool. It'll be fun to try sometime. I've got a battle tunic that....well, it's a battle tunic. Cheap fabric, but could be fun to try my hand at patching it. At the very least, the attempt will impress a few laurals of my acquaintance.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 12:53 AM   #2792
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
In short you would have needed to find actual affirmative evidence of the possibility that the shroud could have been created by wrapping it around a corpse ...

OK, well I'll try asking for a 3rd time - is the shroud image supposed to be an unexplained miracle?

If not, how did the image get on the shroud?

How many examples are there of a detailed full body image like that ever appearing on any burial cloth?

If an image of that sort is scientifically inexplicable &/or historically unknown, then far from shroud believers demanding that sceptics should demonstrate a method which accurately reproduces the shroud, it should be the shroud believers themselves who are required demonstrate how an image like that can ever pass from any body to a shroud!

If the image requires a miracle, then the claimed authenticity of the shroud is disproved by science to a degree far beyond just the C14 dating.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 01:28 AM   #2793
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- I "blamed" you because I was responding to #2590 in which Pgwenthold was referring back to your hypothetical.
He wasn't referring back to any hypothetical. And I didn't post a hypothetical. I used a certain phrasing in order to highlight that your argument would be irrelevant to the question of authenticity, even if it were something you could prove to be true.

I've already explained this to you once. Please don't misrepresent me a third time.

Quote:
- And what I probably should have said was that a 'duplicate' -- that didn't require a dead body to produce it -- wouldn't have been a real duplicate if we can show that the Shroud image does require a dead body.
--- Jabba
We can't. And, even if we could, it would still be utterly irrelevant in light of the C14 dating.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 12th August 2012 at 01:41 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 01:30 AM   #2794
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- Who decides what real evidence is?
--- Jabba
The scientific method.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 01:34 AM   #2795
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- I meant to address this earlier...
- For one thing, hypotheticals can be very useful in a discussion whether they be true or not. For another thing, in order to validly include a hypothetical to actually argue a case, the proponent does not need to prove that the hypothetical is true -- he merely needs to show that it's a reasonable possibility.
--- Jabba
You have yet to show that any of your hypotheticals or suppositions are even vague possibilities, let alone reasonable ones.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 01:35 AM   #2796
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- No.
- In order to have meaningful debate, I merely need to raise reasonable doubt -- the more listeners with whom I can raise it, the more meaningful the debate.
In order to raise a reasonable doubt, you'll have to disprove the C14 dating.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 01:50 AM   #2797
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- Who decides what real evidence is?
--- Jabba
Real evidence are (mostly) reproducible, quantifiable, and haver a margin of error.
Real evidence can be detect by known method which are recognized and used everyday and are in peer reviewed journal used all over the place. For example 14C dating and various other dating isotopes.

BS pretend claim like yours can't be quantified are are mostly hand waving without quantification, reproducibility, explanation on how one can detect them, margin for error, non published, no widespread usage, or usage in case where you need further test to confirm but those were not done etc...
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 02:11 AM   #2798
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,427
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, well I'll try asking for a 3rd time - is the shroud image supposed to be an unexplained miracle?

If not, how did the image get on the shroud?

How many examples are there of a detailed full body image like that ever appearing on any burial cloth?

If an image of that sort is scientifically inexplicable &/or historically unknown, then far from shroud believers demanding that sceptics should demonstrate a method which accurately reproduces the shroud, it should be the shroud believers themselves who are required demonstrate how an image like that can ever pass from any body to a shroud!

If the image requires a miracle, then the claimed authenticity of the shroud is disproved by science to a degree far beyond just the C14 dating.
This seems like a pretty good point to me.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 05:54 AM   #2799
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,683
..
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 12th August 2012 at 06:20 AM.
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 07:32 AM   #2800
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post

...
...

1) The blood was not painted on.
2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.

...
...


OK, this tentative from me, but lets just try to clarify that question with Jabba …

Jabba, how did the image get on the shroud in the first place?

How can any dead body ever produce an image like that on a burial cloth?

Why is the image there at all?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.