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 16th December 2015, 10:51 AM   #2081
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,185
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tomboy,
- Would you consider what was found in the Raes samples as a little bit of evidence of repair in the Raes sample?
See? He does it again. Tries to elicit some little concession, which will then translate to something like "repairs were done in the same area as the C14 sample".

There is no other reason to ask that question, because logically it is totally irrelevant what is or is not in the Raes sample.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 16th December 2015 at 10:53 AM.
MRC_Hans 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 16th December 2015, 11:56 AM   #2082
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tomboy,
- Would you consider what was found in the Raes samples as a little bit of evidence of repair in the Raes sample?

__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"Thereís a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." Ė Stephen Wright
Maurice Ledifficile 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 16th December 2015, 12:18 PM   #2083
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,341
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- If I understand what you're saying, my answer is that "preponderance of evidence" is not limited to a "trial" situation. It's like the basic concept in probability, and applies to any question of likelihood -- such as, "How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?"
- The word "trump" normally refers to a bi-variate situation, where "degree" is not taken into account. That is not the case when we're considering the probability of an event -- which is what we're considering here.

Jabba,
- you are standing on a sidewalk at noon, enjoying the sunshine. The sidewalk is dry, there isn't a cloud in the sky, and no trace of moisture in the air.
- someone phones you from 50 miles away and tells you that they think they hear thunder.
- someone else tells you that if someone is holding a large and invisible (or nearly invisible) umbrella over you then it could be raining.
- someone says that it has rained there in the past.
- several people say that it might be raining somewhere else.
- on the preponderance of the evidence, how likely is it that it is raining right now where you are?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 16th December 2015 at 12:19 PM.
Mojo is online now   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 16th December 2015, 12:55 PM   #2084
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tomboy,
- Would you consider what was found in the Raes samples as a little bit of evidence of repair in the Raes sample?
How about you make that argument and explain why what was done and what was found should constitute evidence of repair. For bonus points in honesty, do so while addressing critique of the Raes samples as evidence made by your ever patient interlocutors in this thread.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 16th December 2015 at 01:01 PM.
Sideroxylon 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 16th December 2015, 12:58 PM   #2085
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
And ain't it dandy you are currently focused on what "the preponderance of evidence" means. A neat red herring to pick at, forget for a bit, returning to the stinky carcase when embarrassed by the stark reality that you have no evidence at all.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon 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 16th December 2015, 03:26 PM   #2086
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
My Dear Mr. Savage:
You have demonstrated your infelicity with probabilities in your "immortality" thread...
Slowvehicle,
- I'm not sure what you mean by "infelicity" here.
__________________
"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 Ť 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 16th December 2015, 03:29 PM   #2087
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...
Reality is not decided by "preponderance of evidence"...
- Reality isn't, but probability is.
__________________
"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 Ť 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 16th December 2015, 03:34 PM   #2088
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
Slowvehicle,
- I'm not sure what you mean by "infelicity" here.
My Dear mr. Savage:

An "infelicity" is a remark, phrase, or usage that is inappropriate, inept, and/or unapt.

See, for example, your deeply-held belief that you may define both A and ~A in a condition.

Through it all, I remain,

Lexicographically yours, &ct.
__________________
"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; 16th December 2015 at 03:37 PM.
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 16th December 2015, 03:36 PM   #2089
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
- Reality isn't, but probability is.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

You will be providing support for this statement?

...that would be refreshing.

I remain,

Hopefully yours, &ct.
__________________
"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; 16th December 2015 at 03:38 PM.
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 16th December 2015, 03:40 PM   #2090
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,664
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
..

- At any rate, I still think that the M&P papers constitute evidence, and for now, I'll keep trying to show why.
Look at that. You allowed yourself to be distracted, what was the probability of that happening?




(hint - it's vanishingly close to 1 as you have been backed into a corner)
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi 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 16th December 2015, 03:41 PM   #2091
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,972
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Reality isn't, but probability is.
This is not a probabilistic comparison, for the reasons already belabored by myself and others, and assiduously ignored by you. If one is able to observe the reality of something, then no amount of probabilistic conjuration or preponderant hand-waving to the contrary changes it.
JayUtah 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 16th December 2015, 03:42 PM   #2092
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,972
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "infelicity" here.
Why the sudden evaporation of your proficiency with the dictionary? It never failed you before when you were trying to equivocate around your critics' statements. Why does it fail you now in comprehending them?
JayUtah 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 16th December 2015, 04:39 PM   #2093
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,364
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Reality isn't, but probability is.
Link or it never happened.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
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 16th December 2015, 04:41 PM   #2094
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Link or it never happened.
Well, chances are...
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette 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 16th December 2015, 06:43 PM   #2095
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,607
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Reality isn't, but probability is.
So, where is this probably? You can't even call into question the carbon dating. Show us the probability.
Craig4 is online now   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 16th December 2015, 06:54 PM   #2096
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,364
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Reality isn't, but probability is.
Jabba, let me ask you this:

Reality isn't what? Probability is what?

What were you talking about a handful of posts back?

Any idea?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 16th December 2015 at 06:56 PM.
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 16th December 2015, 09:14 PM   #2097
Purple Pangolin
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 21
Evidence of preponderance

You know how when you repeat a word or phrase over and over again, it loses all meaning? That's what happened to me when "preponderance of evidence" came up for the eleventy-billionth time. I had to look it up to get some perspective, and this is what I found at dictionary.law.com (I only copied the relevant bits and highlighted the parts the grabbed my attention):

Quote:
This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony...

If we're going with the Matlock scenario, the shroudies have contributed only feathers and hot air to their side of the scale.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Reality isn't, but probability is.

Wow. Deep. Pass the dutchie.
Purple Pangolin 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 16th December 2015, 09:25 PM   #2098
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,341
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Reality isn't, but probability is.

Jabba,
- What is the probability that something that is impossible is true?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   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 16th December 2015, 11:49 PM   #2099
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
What a merry dance. Ive almost forgotten your last failed attempt to provide evidence for authenticity.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon 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 17th December 2015, 09:16 AM   #2100
Tomboy
Thinker
 
Tomboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tomboy,
- Would you consider what was found in the Raes samples as a little bit of evidence of repair in the Raes sample?
Hi Jabba.

I'm not at all sure why you're asking me for my opinion about any of this*. I'm not a scientist or an expert in any relevant field of study, and plenty of the other participants in this discussion whom you regularly dismiss and ignore have done far more research into the matter than I and are more knowledgeable. Whether I agree with you or not isn't going to change the evidence.

But no, a few stray cotton fibers are in no way evidence of a repair or patch of any kind.

Can you explain to me why you think a few stray cotton fibers are evidence of repair and why that would be relevant to the issue of the date of origin of the Shroud? The Raes sample wasn't the piece that was carbon dated, and the piece that was carbon dated was meticulously inspected by textile (and other) experts who were specifically looking for any sort of aberration that would make it inappropriate for testing.

Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Don't fall for it Tomboy, If you answer in the slightest bit affirmative, he'll misquoted you as supporting him. He's been caught doing that again and again. He's been caught misquoting peeps on his web site too.
No worries. I donít speak up much but Iíve been following along through all of these threads. Iím trying to choose my words carefully so I donít inadvertently leave any wiggle room that could be misinterpreted.

Jabba, for the record, please do not quote me or refer to anything Iíve said on your website. Thanks kindly in advance.

* Other than you seem to have this mistaken idea that if you can convince enough people to agree with you, your belief in the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus will be proven correct despite all of the facts and evidence to the contrary, but science doesnít work that way.
Tomboy 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 17th December 2015, 09:48 AM   #2101
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- If I understand what you're saying, my answer is that "preponderance of evidence" is not limited to a "trial" situation. It's like the basic concept in probability, and applies to any question of likelihood -- such as, "How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?"
- The word "trump" normally refers to a bi-variate situation, where "degree" is not taken into account. That is not the case when we're considering the probability of an event -- which is what we're considering here.
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Reality is not decided by "preponderance of evidence"...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Reality isn't, but probability is.
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
My Dear Mr. Savage:
You will be providing support for this statement?
...that would be refreshing...
Slowvehicle,
- Again, I suspect that I'm not understanding your question. It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence. Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful?
__________________
"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 Ť 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 17th December 2015, 10:02 AM   #2102
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,364
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- Again, I suspect that I'm not understanding your question. It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence. Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful?
Stop being obtuse.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
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 17th December 2015, 10:07 AM   #2103
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,972
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Again, I suspect that I'm not understanding your question.
You aren't, but it's already been answered at least twice by me and innumerable times by others. Asking it repeatedly while ignoring those answers is rude and disrespectful. Your critics question whether your obtuseness is deliberate. This sort of evasion helps them decide.

Quote:
It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence.
Asked and answered.

The probability of something being true is irrelevant when you can observe directly whether it's true or not. Any exercise aimed at estimating or computing the probability of a different outcome is moot and unprobative. And more than a little ridiculous.

Additionally your proposed estimation exercise is flawed because you propose to decide the preponderance not between evidence and evidence, but between evidence and conjecture. That is a qualitatively invalid comparison.

Quote:
Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful?
It's meaningless in the context of your argument, for the reasons patiently elaborated and assiduously ignored by you.
JayUtah 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 17th December 2015, 10:15 AM   #2104
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
Slowvehicle,
- Again, I suspect that I'm not understanding your question. It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence. Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful?
My Dear Mr. Savage:

I see.

Brief derail:

You choose not to support your statement, but simply reiterate it, as if the problem were a deficiency in my understanding, instead of a deficiency in your unsupportable assertion.

I had actually hoped you might provide a citation or something to buttress your position.

Follow:

I do not find your statement "meaningless"; I find it incorrect.

I do not find your statement "doubtful"; I find it incorrect.

What, in your mind, is the "probability" of something that is impossible?



Instead of pursuing yet another attempt to avoid the question, why not simply marshal, and present, any evidence at all that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?

I remain,

Determinedly yours &ct.
__________________
"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 17th December 2015, 10:40 AM   #2105
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,341
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence. Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful?

Jabba,
- What is the probability of something being true if it is impossible?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   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 17th December 2015, 12:00 PM   #2106
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,469
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- Again, I suspect that I'm not understanding your question. It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence. Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful?
So what is the evidence that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus? In order to have a preponderance of evidence in the balance, you actually have to have something in the pan. All you ever talk about is taking evidence out of the other side, but without anything on the authentic side, it is meaningless.

For example, in what respect does the Raes claims provide evidence to put in the authentic pan? Hint: it doesn't . Even if it were patched in 1500, that does not mean it was the burial shroud of Jesus. See how that works?
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold 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 17th December 2015, 12:36 PM   #2107
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,364
Originally Posted by Tomboy View Post
[...]Jabba, for the record, please do not quote me or refer to anything Iíve said on your website. Thanks kindly in advance.

* Other than you seem to have this mistaken idea that if you can convince enough people to agree with you, your belief in the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus will be proven correct despite all of the facts and evidence to the contrary, but science doesnít work that way.
Jabba has already quoted you.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
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 17th December 2015, 12:46 PM   #2108
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Where is this silly site of his?
ComfySlippers 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 17th December 2015, 12:47 PM   #2109
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,185
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- Again, I suspect that I'm not understanding your question. It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence. Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful?
Jabba, important info:

Probability cannot be used to evauate the truth of a statement. It can only be used to try to predict an outcome.

If you want to try to calculate the probability that the shroud is found authentic, an important factor is the probability that Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that he was resurrected. This alone is a virtually impossible to do, but here comes the real catch: As the probability of Jesus is an important factor in the probability of the authentic shroud, you cannot afterwards use the shroud to argue for the authenticy of Jesus, because that would be a circular argument.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 17th December 2015, 12:57 PM   #2110
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
With the OP again burying failed attempts at evidence with hand wringing over probability, I can't help but think the introduction of Baysian methods could drag things out to great effect.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon 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 17th December 2015, 01:11 PM   #2111
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
Where is this silly site of his?
http://shrouddebates.com

For bonus giggles see a manifesto for the OPs mission here and ironic advice for dealing with the dishonest and slippery heathen skeptics:
http://shroudstory.com/2012/03/25/a-...a-rich-savage/
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon 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 17th December 2015, 01:13 PM   #2112
Tomboy
Thinker
 
Tomboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Jabba has already quoted you.
*sigh* This shouldn't surprise me. At least the individual posts seem to have been copy/pasted verbatim, but the fact that theyíre not shown chronologically means itís not an accurate representation of the conversation.

Jabba, if youíre going to reproduce the discussion thatís taking place here on your website, at least do so in a way that maintains the integrity of the content.
Tomboy 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 17th December 2015, 01:17 PM   #2113
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,364
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
Where is this silly site of his?
Shrouddebates.com.

Look for his 'map'
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
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 17th December 2015, 01:32 PM   #2114
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
http://shrouddebates.com



For bonus giggles see a manifesto for the OPs mission here and ironic advice for dealing with the dishonest and slippery heathen skeptics:

http://shroudstory.com/2012/03/25/a-...a-rich-savage/

Oh dear.
ComfySlippers 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 17th December 2015, 02:27 PM   #2115
PizzaTheHutt
Scholar
 
PizzaTheHutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
Oh dear.
Tell me about it! I threw up a little in my mouth after reading the comments after Jabba's guest post. Here are a few notable "comments":

"Richard, seeing as these athiests seem to attack you on all fronts, never really giving you a chance to direct yourself to one area (A typical strategy by the way). Hereís a tip; Attack them directly at their strongest points for inauthenticity and donít waver from this strategy.They donít have many points; C14, dí Arcis, McCrone. But be specific and thorough. With the c14 you may want to explain to them first, itís fallibility and itís propensity to errors, from itís basic assumptions, up to written documents showing very good Ďreviewsí of the supposed peer-reviewed Nature paper. Little unknown facts such as all labs using samples of too small or of too low weight to be properly sampled, for example." - Ron

"Yes, I agree. They change topics constantly. They arenít willing to actually DISCUSS anything. This shows their blatant dishonesty, in my opinion." - AnnieCee

"One thing they canít handle is anything supernatural. And yet the evidence collected so far about the Shroud indicates that something supernatural most likely DID happen in order to imprint the image on the cloth.
Maybe you canít exactly prove it, but they canít disprove it either."
- AnnieCee

"Ron and Annie,
Ė I donít have time to address your points tonight, but Iíll be back tomorrow. So, donít go away."
- Guess who?

"They have read absolutely nothing on the science of radiocarbon dating or vanillan loss as stated by R Rogers, most of them are talking out of their Ďotherí endsÖIt also seems they get all their answers from a couple of athiest sites and non scholarly writings." - Ron

"ďAlso what do you mean by the supposed peer-review?Ē Exactly what it says. If the RCD article released by Nature was peer-reviewed, it was a very shoddy job. Almost bad enough to the point that one wonders was it actually properly reviewed or just scanned over quickly." - Ron, implying that the peer review process on the Nature article was shoddy

"Also ó when confronting Randian Looney Tunes, it is important to hold them to their own standards. They are ready to dismiss any work supportive of the Shroud if it is not peer-reviewed, or they can find some *ad hominem* against the author; but they dismiss out of hand even the possibility of anything against atheists attacking the Shroud, usually by demanding proof *ad infinitum*. See post #69 on the Randian thread for examples." - grey

"These athiests are completely biased, blinded, unintelligent and more precisely talking thru their rear orifices. Notice their references to Joe Nickels for most of their evidenceÖthat very telling of thier intelligenceÖ.they actually would accept the words of Nickels against the peer-reviewed words of a world reknowned chemist as R. RogersÖ.idiots." - Ron

"I learned that they tend to get crazy if you talk about Noahís Ark... Thereís plenty of evidence of the Flood, lots and lots of it. The flood is probably what throws off Carbon dating because they donít factor that in. Thatís my opinion on it anyway because I think their dates are screwy. It jumps from 10,000 years to millions and billions Ė with hardly anything in between. In other words, carbon dating gets really weird if they try to go back before the flood happened and so I think they left the flood out of their algorithms." - AnnieCee

"They refuse to talk about angels. Even though thereís an endless supply of stories from people who have met and talked with angels or had angels save their life. They wonít go there. An angel saved MY life one time, maybe more than that. Iíve seen a few genuine for-real documented miracles. But of course they mock all of it. Even the PROOF is not good enough for them, the idiots." - AnnieCee

"Running in circles is probably my biggest problem, and I think that I know how to prevent such foolishness ó itís just hard to resist the temptation to try to answer all my opponents questions and objections as quickly as possibleÖ" - Jabba, admitting that he purposefully slows the entire process down for the purpose of messing with everybody on the forum
PizzaTheHutt 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 17th December 2015, 03:03 PM   #2116
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2

Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
So what is the evidence that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus? In order to have a preponderance of evidence in the balance, you actually have to have something in the pan. All you ever talk about is taking evidence out of the other side, but without anything on the authentic side, it is meaningless.

For example, in what respect does the Raes claims provide evidence to put in the authentic pan? Hint: it doesn't . Even if it were patched in 1500, that does not mean it was the burial shroud of Jesus. See how that works?
Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
__________________
"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 Ť 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 17th December 2015, 03:20 PM   #2117
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,972
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
"Showing weakness in the carbon dating" is not something you can put in the "authentic pan." You don't seem to understand, at a fundamental level, what evidence actually is.
JayUtah 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 17th December 2015, 03:27 PM   #2118
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
- That would be great if you could stop diddling around and present some evidence for the authentic pan.
- Will you be back with that?
- Haven't you given showing weakness in the carbon dating your best shot by tossing around shroudie web links and talking points but repeatedly failed?
- Are you bored of probability talk and about to rehash past points as if they were not abject failures every other time you have raised them, ignoring past criticisms?
- Are these questions obviously rhetorical given your years of dishonest behaviour in your threads?
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 17th December 2015 at 03:31 PM.
Sideroxylon 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 17th December 2015, 03:30 PM   #2119
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,607
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?
That would do nothing to establish the date.
Craig4 is online now   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 17th December 2015, 03:37 PM   #2120
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,972
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
That would do nothing to establish the date.
...or location or style or composition or culture or ownership or provenance or any of the other things we discussed would have to come out affirmatively favorable for a rational person to even consider the possibility that it was the actual burial cloth of Jesus.

Affirmatively favorable. No amount of chipping away at the undesired findings creates that affirmative statement. No amount, Jabba. They are qualitatively dissimilar things.
JayUtah 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 06:54 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.