IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 6th April 2013, 06:12 AM   #6041
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Well, yes and no. It was supposed to be a pure count of affected basophils in different samples. It's an objective measure---a pure number, it's not like the subjective determination of which crystal is prettier. But it's subjective in that you have a person (and a pro-homeopathy person) doing the counting.

The pure numbers should be objective and self-evident, but you add the human factor and we (or I) see error at best and conspiracy at the worst.

Shroud believers see the same thing at work especially since they think that scientists are biased against them.

Ward
Ward,
- I hate to do this to you -- but, thanks.
--- 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 6th April 2013, 06:17 AM   #6042
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
You don't have 'reasonable' doubt, Jabba. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to a clear process by which all three laboratories, including the two which blinded the samples at the final stage, could have made the same dating error. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to an actual flaw in the process of sampling, processing or reporting of results. Reasonable doubt is where the alternative theory is actually tenable without resorting to magic.

What you have is unreasonable doubt, fostered by your intense desire to have the shroud be the real burial cloth of Jesus. This unreasonable doubt is what drives the insinuations of unconscious bias having some kind of magical effect on objective machinery, a magical effect that even affects blind samples. Unreasonable doubt is where you ignore pieces of evidence which don't fit in with your preferred outcome. It's not scientific or rational, it's allowing your emotions to override your judgement. Laid out like that, can you see that your position is not one of reasonable doubt but of unreasonable doubt?

Nobody in this thread is trying to get you to abandon your faith (if you were to discuss your doubts about faith in another thread, that might be different). But faith in Jesus or God should not be affected by whether a piece of cloth is from the 1st or the 14th century, because nothing about the dating of the shroud has any bearing on whether Jesus existed or whether gods are real or imaginary. The evidence is what matters, and the evidence is that the shroud is from the 14th century.

The men of the Vatican don't allow the fact that the shroud is mediaeval to damage their faiths in their God, because rightly they understand that a piece of cloth doesn't have that power. Neither do most Christians because their faith is in Jesus and God, not a piece of cloth.

You've invested this piece of cloth with magical properties in the way it affects your faith. It's almost as if you have turned the shroud itself into a god. It isn't, it's just a piece of cloth which like hundreds of other religious objects has developed a raft of myths and superstitions around it. Just like all those fragments of the 'true cross' which, if put together would be enough to construct several hundred crosses and none of which came from an actual 1st century cross, let alone the actual cross on which Jesus was supposedly crucified.

I don't profess to fully understand the thinking which goes into the way you think about the shroud, but I would like you to consider this analogy about a hockey puck.

On my mantelpiece, I have an ice hockey puck which was used in a UK Challenge Cup final in 2002, being the last time the cup was won by the Sheffield Steelers (the team I support). I was at each leg of the final and have fantastic memories of the games.

If I one day discovered that the puck had been switched so that it's just an ordinary puck and not one used in that particular final, I wouldn't stop supporting the Sheffield Steelers, and I wouldn't feel that their victory had been tainted. I'd probably still keep the puck on the mantelpiece, because it's a reminder of the game, it's not the game itself or a substitute for my support for the team.

Just like that hockey puck, the only thing the shroud should be is a reminder of your faith just as any religiously-inspired painting, statue, piece of architecture or even piece of music. It can be that reminder of your faith no matter when it was produced, because it isn't the faith itself.
Nommed.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 6th April 2013, 06:51 AM   #6043
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I suspect that you have info that I do not yet have (or, have not yet recognized)...
No kidding !
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 6th April 2013, 06:54 AM   #6044
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Jabba - the problem with you talking about reasonable doubt is that it leads you inescapably to the accustaion of deliberate fraud. Here’s why -

- if you think there is reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the dates reported by the three radiocarbon labs, then you are left having to explain how all three labs could possibly report the same date range of circa. 1260-1390.

That would appear to leave only two possibilities in respect of your reasonable doubt -

- either (A) all three labs correctly measured the date to be in the range c.1260-1390AD. In which case your reasonable doubt was unfounded.

- or else (B) all three labs conspired to fraudulently report a dishonest date. In which case your reasonable doubt would be well founded.

Those appear to be the only two possibilities. Can you think of any other way that 3 different labs in the USA, Switzerland and England could all come up with the same entirely false date?

Either the date is truly what the labs measured, or else it is a fraud.

In other words, when you say you have a reasonable doubt like that, what it actually means is that you think it’s reasonable to say that “B” is true and the three labs conspired together to deliberately report a false date in order to claim that the shroud could not date from the time of Jesus.

Do you really think that is a reasonable doubt?
Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally,
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- 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 6th April 2013, 07:01 AM   #6045
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally,
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba



Jabba - here's the key question - how is it possible for three completely independent labs to all get the same date for the shroud?
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 6th April 2013, 07:25 AM   #6046
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
Oh give it a rest. How many times have you made this statement? You're starting to sound like a parrot.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 6th April 2013, 08:36 AM   #6047
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Christian Klippel View Post
Plus, would have to have it done in a way that in turn will fool the British Museum Research Laboratory, which did the statistical analysis of the data. Or, that lab had to be in on it as well.

What Jabba fails to understand is that such an undertaking would not only risk one scientists reputation to be irreperably damaged if found out, but _all_ the involved scientists. That is, from the three dating labs plus the BMRL. Plus, of course, of those labs themselves for allowing such a big deception to occur in the first place.

Given the fact that this was a really high-profile case this is extremely unlikely. There were just too many eyes watching and observing, the outcome would in no way be enough to accept the risk.
This is a point, or rather a number of points, that Jabba and most shroudies probably don't comprehend.
1. There were a lot of people involved in the dating process, for the lunatic conspiracy theories to have any basis in reality many people would have to be involved.
2. Because of the number of people involved the participants would know it was impossible to tamper with results.
3. This is the kind of high profile analysis that has senior people watching; it's not just a couple of techs running the analysis and passing the data along. I have little doubt that senior staff were watching curiously and performing their own calculations on the raw data as soon as they had it.
This eliminates the idea of some kind of centralised fraud at the BM as the labs would know approximately what to expect.


Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Oh give it a rest. How many times have you made this statement? You're starting to sound like a parrot.
Indeed.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
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 6th April 2013, 08:43 AM   #6048
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Nommed.
Seconded.
jhunter1163 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 6th April 2013, 08:48 AM   #6049
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
You don't have 'reasonable' doubt, Jabba. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to a clear process by which all three laboratories, including the two which blinded the samples at the final stage, could have made the same dating error. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to an actual flaw in the process of sampling, processing or reporting of results. Reasonable doubt is where the alternative theory is actually tenable without resorting to magic.

What you have is unreasonable doubt, fostered by your intense desire to have the shroud be the real burial cloth of Jesus. This unreasonable doubt is what drives the insinuations of unconscious bias having some kind of magical effect on objective machinery, a magical effect that even affects blind samples. Unreasonable doubt is where you ignore pieces of evidence which don't fit in with your preferred outcome. It's not scientific or rational, it's allowing your emotions to override your judgement. Laid out like that, can you see that your position is not one of reasonable doubt but of unreasonable doubt?

Nobody in this thread is trying to get you to abandon your faith (if you were to discuss your doubts about faith in another thread, that might be different). But faith in Jesus or God should not be affected by whether a piece of cloth is from the 1st or the 14th century, because nothing about the dating of the shroud has any bearing on whether Jesus existed or whether gods are real or imaginary. The evidence is what matters, and the evidence is that the shroud is from the 14th century.

The men of the Vatican don't allow the fact that the shroud is mediaeval to damage their faiths in their God, because rightly they understand that a piece of cloth doesn't have that power. Neither do most Christians because their faith is in Jesus and God, not a piece of cloth.

You've invested this piece of cloth with magical properties in the way it affects your faith. It's almost as if you have turned the shroud itself into a god. It isn't, it's just a piece of cloth which like hundreds of other religious objects has developed a raft of myths and superstitions around it. Just like all those fragments of the 'true cross' which, if put together would be enough to construct several hundred crosses and none of which came from an actual 1st century cross, let alone the actual cross on which Jesus was supposedly crucified.

I don't profess to fully understand the thinking which goes into the way you think about the shroud, but I would like you to consider this analogy about a hockey puck.

On my mantelpiece, I have an ice hockey puck which was used in a UK Challenge Cup final in 2002, being the last time the cup was won by the Sheffield Steelers (the team I support). I was at each leg of the final and have fantastic memories of the games.

If I one day discovered that the puck had been switched so that it's just an ordinary puck and not one used in that particular final, I wouldn't stop supporting the Sheffield Steelers, and I wouldn't feel that their victory had been tainted. I'd probably still keep the puck on the mantelpiece, because it's a reminder of the game, it's not the game itself or a substitute for my support for the team.

Just like that hockey puck, the only thing the shroud should be is a reminder of your faith just as any religiously-inspired painting, statue, piece of architecture or even piece of music. It can be that reminder of your faith no matter when it was produced, because it isn't the faith itself.
Quoted because Jabba needs to read it and respond. Unfortunately, I predict that he will ignore it.
jond 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 6th April 2013, 08:57 AM   #6050
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally,
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba
None of which are reasons for reasonable doubt.
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
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 6th April 2013, 09:17 AM   #6051
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Explain something to me, Jabba.
Two of the laboratories blinded the testing between the preparation and the measurement.
Let us assume, for the purposes of this post, that you are the scientists doing the measurement or calculation from the measurement. Alas, in this post you are an evil shroud denier, driven to show that the shroud is a 14th century artifact regardless of the Truth.

You're handed three samples of black dust, labeled with numbers. Call them 1, 2, 3.
You know that these are the shroud sample, a 14th century control, and a 1st century control, but not which is which. You only have the identifying numbers.
After measurement, you conclude that 1 and 2 date to the first century, while sample 3 dates to the 14th century.

Your problem is this: which of the two first century measurements do you lie about, claiming that it dates to the 14th century? If the one you lie about is the Shroud measurement, then your evil work here is done, and your lie is successful. If you lie about the first century control, though, then your lie will be found out, because other people know that that sample didn't come from Shroud.

For you to have a reasonable doubt, you must now answer the question of how an evil shroud denier solves this problem. Twice. And why assuming there are two evil Shroud deniers is a reasonable assumption.

You could just guess, but your chance of success with this method is 50/50. Since there are two independent people facing this problem, your odds of success are .5 x .5 = .25, or only 1 chance in 4. Also, you don't know if either of the other two labs blinded the controls, or whether they will lie about the results.

Now, if your assumptions are that all three laboratories colluded on a lie, then I don't think that falls under "reasonable doubt". That's squarely in the "Conspiracy Theory" camp, and you should admit it.
TjW 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 6th April 2013, 09:18 AM   #6052
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
Demonstrably false, and since we've explained why it's false including references this is a lie to boot.

Quote:
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
In a year and over 150 pages you've yet to provide a single argument in favor of this fantasy that withstands even the most casual of analysis.

Quote:
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
Upon what do you base this accusation of fraud? You're demonstrably unfamiliar with standard sampling methods, after all.

Quote:
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias.
Translation: "I have no idea what any of this means, but since it disagrees with me I'm going to assume that someone committed fraud." Not just that, but every scientist who read it--which includes folks who are predisposed towards religions, including Catholicism/Christianity--would have to miss basic math errors. So this is an accusation of fraud and of conspiracy.

Quote:
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.
This, despite our careful explanations for why blinding is irrelevant to carbon dating and the fact that blinding was actually done.

Quote:
I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.
You've been researching this topics for a decade, and have had over a year to find the references. You can't. Just admit it.
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 6th April 2013, 09:19 AM   #6053
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Jabba - here's the key question - how is it possible for three completely independent labs to all get the same date for the shroud?
Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
- If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference.
- I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.
--- 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 6th April 2013, 09:23 AM   #6054
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
You have no basis for this accusation of professional dishonesty, collusion, or outright fraud.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
There is no physical evidence to serve as a foundation for this suspicion; worse, you have been presented with a raft of physical evidence to the contrary, even evidence from STURP.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
You have no basis for this blanket accusation of dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally,
What "accusations" about the statistics? You have no basis to continue to claim that three independent labs would be venal enough, dishonest enough, careless enough, or inclose enough collusion, to make the same mistakes in the same direction and reach the same erroneous results.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba
It seems that you mean that you have not yet invented a convincing way that all three albs could have gotten away with lying about the results of the 14C dates.

You have ignored the explanations you have been offered about why blinding is not a part of 14C dating.

You have ignored the fact that, to avoid silly charges such as yours, two of the labs did, in fact, run blinded samples (why have you not addressed the fact that those two results were consonant with the other, unblinded result?).

You are perfectly happy to accuse a multitude of researches, writers and technicians of dishonesty, venality, fraud, incompetence, stupidity, and collusion...and the only reason you have for doing so is that you do not "like" the medieval date.

This has gone beyond sad...

ETA: substantially ninja'd by TjW and Dinwar, but I'm letting it stand...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 6th April 2013 at 09:25 AM.
Slowvehicle 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 6th April 2013, 09:27 AM   #6055
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
...
Jabba, they were not testing authenticity, they were assaying the date. The shroud could have been dated to 30AD and it still wouldn't prove that some guy called Jesus had ever been near it.

But the implication of your statement is that the scientists would have co-operated from three different countries to falsify the results. It is quite ridiculous that all of these scientists and their lab technicians colluded and nobody has admitted it happened.
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 6th April 2013, 09:28 AM   #6056
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
After the labs got the samples, they cut them up into smaller pieces, and cleaned each of those pieces in a different way. Are you saying that all 12 cleaning methods were inadequate?
__________________
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 6th April 2013, 09:54 AM   #6057
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
- If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference.
- I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.
--- jabba



OK, well that sounds like a direct admission that bias cannot be an explanation for the C14 dates.

What you say above is going right back to your earlier argument saying the sample must have been a patch of some kind (dating from circa. 1260-1390AD).

Though in a previous recent post I thought you had agreed that the patch idea cannot be right?

Are we ditching the idea of bias leading all three labs to the same wrong date, and going back now to the idea of a patch again?
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 6th April 2013, 09:58 AM   #6058
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
After the labs got the samples, they cut them up into smaller pieces, and cleaned each of those pieces in a different way. Are you saying that all 12 cleaning methods were inadequate?
Squeegee,
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.
__________________
"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 6th April 2013, 10:08 AM   #6059
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Sci...icfailure.html
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 6th April 2013, 10:24 AM   #6060
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Quoted because Jabba needs to read it and respond. Unfortunately, I predict that he will ignore it.
He'll get back to us - when he has time. Look at all the demands on his time. A sick relative. Shopping. Working. Sleeping. Thinking. Researching his claims.

No. He'll get back to us. He's told us he would.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 6th April 2013, 10:31 AM   #6061
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ian,
[...]
- I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.
--- jabba
More weasel-wording.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 6th April 2013, 10:34 AM   #6062
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.
But Gove agreed that the 14C date was correct.

This is pathetic.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones 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 6th April 2013, 10:54 AM   #6063
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
<snip> they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
Recycled crap. Numerous textile experiments, tests, examination et cetera.
No patching, no significant contamination.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference.
Irrelevant strawman.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.
And the frantic back pedaling.
Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
After the labs got the samples, they cut them up into smaller pieces, and cleaned each of those pieces in a different way. Are you saying that all 12 cleaning methods were inadequate?
And if there was contamination why did each method give the same result. If there was contamination a rational person would expect varied results as different mixes of contamination and actual material were tested.



Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
More recycled crap. The magic bio-plastic contamination is a myth, debunked in this thread and elsewhere.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.
How about providing some actual proof for your claims this time?

Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
He'll get back to us - when he has time. Look at all the demands on his time. A sick relative. Shopping. Working. Sleeping. Thinking. Researching his claims.

No. He'll get back to us. He's told us he would.
Yes. He's just wasting our time.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
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 6th April 2013, 11:09 AM   #6064
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
 
Christian Klippel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,431
The only ones that i can see would have a vested interrest in tampering with the data would be the church itself. Imagine what a boost it would give them if the date would match to the first century. How much more people would come to see it, and spend lots of money for getting there and for the church.

As for the labs and scientists involved, they would have no gain by tampering the data to show the date it finally showed. Absolutely nothing. Quite the contrary, they would also have benefitted from showing a first century date, just for the publicity! "We are the ones that did it!". That would give them quite a boost and very likely drive more customers to them to have whatever kind of relic "verified" by them. After all, they would be the famous "We did the shroud" labs that got the "right" results in the eyes of those concerned.

Greetings,

Chris
Christian Klippel 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 6th April 2013, 11:36 AM   #6065
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.
I don't think it's possible to convert you to reality.

Your suggestion is insane. You're asking the scientists to remove all sources of possible bias. Barring that, it leaves an unreasonable amount of doubt, leading you, Jabba, to believe the shroud is authentic.

As I said, this is INSANE. Just admit it. It's a fake.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 6th April 2013, 11:39 AM   #6066
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
Again with the insane suggestions. Anything to maintain your faith-based conclusion.

Quote:
- I'm in a rush right now
I'll assume that's a lie.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 6th April 2013, 11:53 AM   #6067
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by Christian Klippel View Post
...
As for the labs and scientists involved, they would have no gain by tampering the data to show the date it finally showed. Absolutely nothing. ....
You are forgetting that all scientists are secular atheists and hell bent on destroying Christianity. It seems like this is the projection used when the religious feel victimized.
Olowkow 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 6th April 2013, 12:01 PM   #6068
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
 
Christian Klippel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,431
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
You are forgetting that all scientists are secular atheists and hell bent on destroying Christianity. It seems like this is the projection used when the religious feel victimized.
Ha, right! After all, what's a nice career and respect good for anyways if instead you can slap an arbitrary date on some old dirty tablecloth...

It's funny to see how the believers have no qualms about assigning sinister motives to people like scientist, although the risks would far, far outweigh the benefit, while being completely ignorant of what their side would have to gain if they would be the ones playing unfair.

Greetings,

Chris
Christian Klippel 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 6th April 2013, 12:11 PM   #6069
sleepy_lioness
Muse
 
sleepy_lioness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 565
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
You don't have 'reasonable' doubt, Jabba. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to a clear process by which all three laboratories, including the two which blinded the samples at the final stage, could have made the same dating error. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to an actual flaw in the process of sampling, processing or reporting of results. Reasonable doubt is where the alternative theory is actually tenable without resorting to magic.

What you have is unreasonable doubt, fostered by your intense desire to have the shroud be the real burial cloth of Jesus. This unreasonable doubt is what drives the insinuations of unconscious bias having some kind of magical effect on objective machinery, a magical effect that even affects blind samples. Unreasonable doubt is where you ignore pieces of evidence which don't fit in with your preferred outcome. It's not scientific or rational, it's allowing your emotions to override your judgement. Laid out like that, can you see that your position is not one of reasonable doubt but of unreasonable doubt?

Nobody in this thread is trying to get you to abandon your faith (if you were to discuss your doubts about faith in another thread, that might be different). But faith in Jesus or God should not be affected by whether a piece of cloth is from the 1st or the 14th century, because nothing about the dating of the shroud has any bearing on whether Jesus existed or whether gods are real or imaginary. The evidence is what matters, and the evidence is that the shroud is from the 14th century.

The men of the Vatican don't allow the fact that the shroud is mediaeval to damage their faiths in their God, because rightly they understand that a piece of cloth doesn't have that power. Neither do most Christians because their faith is in Jesus and God, not a piece of cloth.

You've invested this piece of cloth with magical properties in the way it affects your faith. It's almost as if you have turned the shroud itself into a god. It isn't, it's just a piece of cloth which like hundreds of other religious objects has developed a raft of myths and superstitions around it. Just like all those fragments of the 'true cross' which, if put together would be enough to construct several hundred crosses and none of which came from an actual 1st century cross, let alone the actual cross on which Jesus was supposedly crucified.

I don't profess to fully understand the thinking which goes into the way you think about the shroud, but I would like you to consider this analogy about a hockey puck.

On my mantelpiece, I have an ice hockey puck which was used in a UK Challenge Cup final in 2002, being the last time the cup was won by the Sheffield Steelers (the team I support). I was at each leg of the final and have fantastic memories of the games.

If I one day discovered that the puck had been switched so that it's just an ordinary puck and not one used in that particular final, I wouldn't stop supporting the Sheffield Steelers, and I wouldn't feel that their victory had been tainted. I'd probably still keep the puck on the mantelpiece, because it's a reminder of the game, it's not the game itself or a substitute for my support for the team.

Just like that hockey puck, the only thing the shroud should be is a reminder of your faith just as any religiously-inspired painting, statue, piece of architecture or even piece of music. It can be that reminder of your faith no matter when it was produced, because it isn't the faith itself.
Agatha, speaking as a Christian, this is a beautiful post. thank you.
sleepy_lioness 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 6th April 2013, 12:45 PM   #6070
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.
Do you say this out loud every time you post it?
Can you hear yourself?
kerikiwi 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 6th April 2013, 01:04 PM   #6071
PiedPiper
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 148
I can't help but agree with Agatha.

Why is Jabba turning to science to "confirm" the shroud?

I can't accept that Jabba simply wants this shroud to be from the correct time period. I don't think anyone would put the amount of time and work into this issue as Jabba has to simply prove it to be a different time period. I think he wants it to be THE Shroud.

As a scientist myself, all I can tell you is Jabba, science doesn't have the answers for you here. To my knowledge there is no scientifically acceptable method of proving the shroud of Turin to be the Shroud, because we don't have reference DNA samples and there's not an acceptable chain of custody for any of the physical aspects of the shroud (blood, fibers, whatever) leading all the way back to the death of Jesus.

Even with authentic DNA references and a chain-of-custody, DNA results are not 100% accurate (100% is a big number, unlike say 99.99999%) and the chain-of-custody could have been manipulated over the years, by persons unknown for reasons unknown. Unlikely, but possible.

Science will never have an absolute definitive answer for you on this issue. Even worse (for your approach to this) is the overwhelming evidence that we do have, all pointing towards "this is not the Shroud". Carbon dating has been performed by multiple labs, all who followed strict cleaning procedures. That's as definitive of an answer as science can give you, and I truly feel sorrowful that you can't accept that.

The shroud of Turin is an intriguing historical object that inspires many Christians and can be used to help strengthen your faith in certain areas. (At least, it does for me). But if you want to bring it out of that defined box and into the realm of science...there's just not any good news waiting for you.
PiedPiper 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 6th April 2013, 01:48 PM   #6072
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
So many veiled accusations and weasel words.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
I am sure you do, but it says a lot more about your bias than anything else. You are revealing more about your own predjudices. How, exactly do you know which of the scientists involved was biased and in which direction? Remember, there were more involved than the figureheads. For your notion to fly, all three labs would have to intentionally collude to get the results they did. Your point 1 is simply an underhanded way of making that accusation without speaking the actual words.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
But you won't. You never come good on any of these vague promises.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
Again, this is your bias playing out, nobody else's. I recall, at the time, being quite interested in how it would play out. In fact, in a perverse way, I hoped for an early date as that would be far more intriguing that a medieval fake. Turns out to be a medieval fake.

Stop trying to paint your blatant bias over everyone else here.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias.
How on earth can you say on the one hand you do not understand it, yet OTOH it is in part the result of bias? If you don't understand it, how would you know? I will tell you. It is because YOUR bias tells you it must be so.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
And finally,
The coup-de-grace, is it?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba
Yep, go ahead, ignore all the fine information provide freely by experts throughout this thread. I wonder if you have even read the posts that dealt with this in detail. Once again, this is down to your own self admitted bias, and nothing more. It has no more substance than unicorn boogers.

You freely admit that you have this bias. Why can you not see past it?

I am not sure what more can be done with you short of launching a first strike with the triumvirate scud missiles of data, understanding and enlightenment. But that has been tried already in this very thread, bringing no more result than a slur on all the scientists involved, and indeed on the participants in this thread. We must all be "in on it".
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 6th April 2013, 01:51 PM   #6073
slyjoe
Illuminator
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,668
Originally Posted by PiedPiper View Post
I can't help but agree with Agatha.

Why is Jabba turning to science to "confirm" the shroud?

...snip
I think it is similar to the creationists. Deep down, maybe they know it's all an illusory set of fairy tales and maybe, just maybe, if there is an inkling of connection to reality, it helps them suppress their doubts.
__________________
"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 6th April 2013, 01:53 PM   #6074
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So many veiled accusations and weasel words.

I am sure you do, but it says a lot more about your bias than anything else. You are revealing more about your own predjudices. How, exactly do you know which of the scientists involved was biased and in which direction? Remember, there were more involved than the figureheads. For your notion to fly, all three labs would have to intentionally collude to get the results they did. Your point 1 is simply an underhanded way of making that accusation without speaking the actual words.
But you won't. You never come good on any of these vague promises.
Again, this is your bias playing out, nobody else's. I recall, at the time, being quite interested in how it would play out. In fact, in a perverse way, I hoped for an early date as that would be far more intriguing that a medieval fake. Turns out to be a medieval fake.

Stop trying to paint your blatant bias over everyone else here.


How on earth can you say on the one hand you do not understand it, yet OTOH it is in part the result of bias? If you don't understand it, how would you know? I will tell you. It is because YOUR bias tells you it must be so.
The coup-de-grace, is it?

Yep, go ahead, ignore all the fine information provide freely by experts throughout this thread. I wonder if you have even read the posts that dealt with this in detail. Once again, this is down to your own self admitted bias, and nothing more. It has no more substance than unicorn boogers.

You freely admit that you have this bias. Why can you not see past it?

I am not sure what more can be done with you short of launching a first strike with the triumvirate scud missiles of data, understanding and enlightenment. But that has been tried already in this very thread, bringing no more result than a slur on all the scientists involved, and indeed on the participants in this thread. We must all be "in on it".
Totally sig-worthy. Do you mind?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 6th April 2013, 01:59 PM   #6075
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Totally sig-worthy. Do you mind?
Feel free. I'm flattered.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 6th April 2013, 02:09 PM   #6076
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
...So no, you don't understand the concept of 'reasonable doubt' you're just using the buzzword as part of your attempt to avoid an uncomfortable reality.
Gove, and other scientists, wanted STURP removed from the process of planning the testing because they were widely considered not just biased but obstructive. This was agreed by Cardinal Ballestrero. ...
Ah, yes. Jabba's fantasy requires Cardinal Ballestrero to be in on the conspiracy, doesn't it?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.) ...
Why do you suspect this, especially when you've yet to substantiate this claim?
__________________
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 6th April 2013, 02:19 PM   #6077
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Ah, yes. Jabba's fantasy requires Cardinal Ballestrero to be in on the conspiracy, doesn't it?
Why, yes. And all of the associated scientists. And all of us. How deep must the rabbit hole get? My ex-spouse, surely? And as my ex, why would she keep shtum? My parents? My kids? My dentist?

Jabba will never define this. It suits the authenticity belief to keep everything vague. Witness the number of things claimed with evidence "coming soooooon". Never happens. At best, expect a link to Rogers malarkey. Over a year into this thread, yet still nothing substantive. Colour me cynical at this stage.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Why do you suspect this, especially when you've yet to substantiate this claim?
Apologies, I can't answer that, and Jabba can't answer that after a year or more of asking. Did I mention I was getting a little cynical about this? Over a year, yet still no better response than "I'll go look for it"? Give me a break.

End rant.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 6th April 2013, 02:19 PM   #6078
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Squeegee,
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.
Don't bother. You've just stated that, in essence, NOTHING will convince you that the C14 dating is correct. There is no protocol that will satisfy your requirements. If they're blinded, your argument is that they were switched. If they're not, your argument is that the lack of controls makes them irrelevant. If they're cleaned, you'll say it's not good enough.
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 6th April 2013, 02:30 PM   #6079
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Ah, yes. Jabba's fantasy requires Cardinal Ballestrero to be in on the conspiracy, doesn't it?




Why do you suspect this, especially when you've yet to substantiate this claim?
God must be in on it since god wants faith and dating the shroud properly would reduce the need for faith He confused the labs as he did the languages at Babel. So the more science data the less need for faith so scientific data that disproves the Shroud actually proves it.

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 6th April 2013, 02:37 PM   #6080
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
...Did I mention I was getting a little cynical about this? Over a year, yet still no better response than "I'll go look for it"? Give me a break.

End rant.
Now, now, abaddon.
No need to be cynical- think of all the fantastic information that's been posted up here.
Anyway, I find the return to the patch idea almost endearing, myself.
I can't wait to see just what Jabba has come up with by way of evidence on the subject.

C'mon, wasn't it fun to see references to that old friend, 'Polymer' Valdez?
And that hopeless couple, Marino/Bedford?

Good times!
__________________
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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

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 02:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.