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 18th December 2015, 01:51 PM   #2161
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,191
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
You are wrong. Simple as that. The C14 test is a conclusive result. "Some doubt" gets you nowhere. You need strong, objective counter-evidence. All else is a waste of time.

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 18th December 2015, 02:36 PM   #2162
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,611
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
If it's wrong then we just don't have a carbon date. That's all. If the carbon dating never happened you'd still have no evidence the Shroud covered the body of the person you want it to have.
Craig4 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 18th December 2015, 02:38 PM   #2163
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by HighRiser View Post
So which step are you on now? Is it a step forward or backward?
It's more a shuffling in place. It creates the illusion of activity without risking making progress.
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 18th December 2015, 03:50 PM   #2164
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
- Right. That's the idea. One step at a time. Tedious, but logical.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

It is dishonest of you to continue to pretend, as you do, that hypothetical expressions ("even IF it were possible for you to demonstrate a weakness...") represent actual situations ("...since you agree that the 14C dating is infirm, there has to be '...some patching'").

When do you intend to demonstrate that the CIQ must be ~2000 years old?

I remain,

Accurately 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 18th December 2015, 04:49 PM   #2165
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It's more a shuffling in place. It creates the illusion of activity without risking making progress.
Michael Jackson moonwalking.
Giordano 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 18th December 2015, 08:30 PM   #2166
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
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

You should not make so free to paraphrase the words of others; especially when your "paraphrase" goes against the meaning of the original words. That is, simply, dishonest.

It has been pointed out to you, multiple times, that the 14C date is only one of a multitude of indications that the CIQ is manifestly medieval. To say nothing of the fact that, even were you to prove that the 14C date (provided by the mostly scrutinized bit of carbon dating ever) was, in fact, demonstrable an Illuminati plot, you would sill have the anatomical absurdity, the postural impossibility, the scriptural disagreement, the historical inaccuracy, and the anti-gravity "hair" and "blood" of the representational byzantine-styled image on the sized and gessoed surface of a manifestly medieval bit of linen.

When do you intend to begin producing any evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old?

I remain,

disappointedly 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 18th December 2015, 11:08 PM   #2167
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It's more a shuffling in place. It creates the illusion of activity without risking making progress.
There's no illusion. The dishonesty here is ludicrously inept.
__________________
'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 19th December 2015, 02:32 AM   #2168
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,532
Jabba,

No matter how small the steps, it's still vital to check into what you'll be treading...
Rincewind 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 19th December 2015, 02:50 AM   #2169
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,350
Originally Posted by HighRiser View Post
So which step are you on now? Is it a step forward or backward?

A sidestep, as usual.
__________________
"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 19th December 2015, 03:34 AM   #2170
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,237
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
A sidestep, as usual.
It's just a jump to the left...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 19th December 2015, 08:53 AM   #2171
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Discussion Format

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
It doesn't matter how much you "take out" of the forgery pan, if there is nothing in the authentic pan, it doesn't matter, you can never tip the scales in its favor.
pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?
__________________
"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 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 19th December 2015, 09:10 AM   #2172
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,611
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?
Why do we need your effective debate when we have the Scientific Method? Make a claim and support it with evidence. Pretty straight forward.
Craig4 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 19th December 2015, 09:20 AM   #2173
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,191
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?
Absolutely disagree. Hypothetical questions are rarely useful, and mostly serve to cloud the issue.

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 19th December 2015, 10:07 AM   #2174
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Absolutely disagree. Hypothetical questions are rarely useful, and mostly serve to cloud the issue.

Hans
Indeed. As has been pointed out many times before, Jabba needs his hypotheticals because he has no evidence and thus must rely entirely on his "what if" scenarios.
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 19th December 2015, 10:15 AM   #2175
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,470
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?
Baseless hypotheticals do nothing to advance debate.

Unless you actually have some evidence for authenticity, it does not matter what hypotheticals you create.
__________________
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 19th December 2015, 10:36 AM   #2176
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful
You can claim that, but your argument style explicitly tends toward the opposite. You take my carefully and clearly worded posts and manipulate them as best you can to try to make them say something else. Equivocation, the mainstay of your argument, is the enemy of specificity.

Quote:
...and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?
I can't possibly disagree more. Between your highly dishonest and errant "map" maintained elsewhere and your ham-fisted attempts to cram "hypotheticals" into your critics' mouths, you're simply trying to pretend there is some other debate happening other than what is unfolding before your eyes.

When may we expect you to deal with the actual arguments on the table, not the ones you fervently wish had been made instead?

Last edited by JayUtah; 19th December 2015 at 12:03 PM.
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 19th December 2015, 10:49 AM   #2177
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. [...]
Is this series of 4 grotesque threads spread-out over as many years supposed to be an example of that?

If so, the verdict is: Fail.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 19th December 2015 at 10:56 AM.
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 19th December 2015, 01:05 PM   #2178
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,350
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Absolutely disagree. Hypothetical questions are rarely useful, and mostly serve to cloud the issue.

Clouding the issue is useful if you have no evidence to support your position.
__________________
"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 19th December 2015, 01:18 PM   #2179
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
- You post assertions made by shroudies without examining the evidence and argument behind them.
- You do not engage with considered and detailed criticism of these. That's just plain rude.
- You go off on these waffling and pointless tangents about what kind of framework would support authnticity. Only to come back and throw out the same debunked claims.
- As far as any actual debate going on, this is easily the limpest defence of an idea I have ever seen on these forums. We have zero vigorous back and forth. This is not a debate because you will not engage with any counter argument.
__________________
'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 21st December 2015, 05:27 AM   #2180
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,664
Jabba working on a reply as I type. Standby for evidence overload, naysayers!
__________________
"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 21st December 2015, 05:45 AM   #2181
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,664
Oh, he's gone
__________________
"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 21st December 2015, 10:33 AM   #2182
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
You go off on these waffling and pointless tangents about what kind of framework would support authnticity. Only to come back and throw out the same debunked claims.
Spend enough time reading fringe arguments and you discover this is all it ever is. There's rarely a debate over the strength of the actual evidence. Fringe argumentation is all about different patterns of trying to stack the deck to make what little (if any) evidence they have seem important or probative. The patterns very from genre to genre, but they all take some form of setting up ad hoc ground rules that favor their claims.

Quote:
This is not a debate because you will not engage with any counter argument.
We should point out that endless requests for clarification and endless attempts to elicit some token conciliation from the opponent du jour does not count as engagement.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st December 2015 at 10:41 AM.
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 21st December 2015, 05:21 PM   #2183
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,373
Cool Hand J was back again this afternoon with a whole lot of nuthin'.

Is this how the thread will end?
__________________
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 21st December 2015, 05:31 PM   #2184
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Discussion Format

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
My Dear Mr. Savage:
You do not need to "explain" your hope that you can avoid facing reality by pretending that this is a "trial", and that the proper standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (neither of which, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly) is correct.
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.
I remain,
Hopefully yours, &ct.
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?
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
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?
...
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?
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?
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Do you accept that if I had wings, I could fly.
If there were evidence for authenticity, we could compare that to the evidence for a forgery...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
It doesn't matter how much you "take out" of the forgery pan, if there is nothing in the authentic pan, it doesn't matter, you can never tip the scales in its favor...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Baseless hypotheticals do nothing to advance debate.
Unless you actually have some evidence for authenticity, it does not matter what hypotheticals you create.
pgwenthold,

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.
__________________
"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 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 21st December 2015, 05:42 PM   #2185
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?
For the third time, quit trying to have a fantasy debate in your mind. Quit trying to put words in your critics' mouths. Quit trying to elicit from them token acquiescence to spin as support. We're onto those tactics, in case it's not obvious.

The notion of preponderance requires you to have evidence to weigh. You have none. Therefore you cannot make an argument based on preponderance. Period, full stop, end of discussion. Is that clear enough for you?

Quote:
And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues...
No. You have been told exactly in what way you equivocated and misrepresented your critics instructions to make them sound like a validation of what you were already doing. How many times must you be corrected before it takes hold?

Quote:
...so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.
No, that was not what you were instructed to do. Now try again, and get it right this time. If you plan to argue a preponderance of evidence in your favor, you must have actual evidence. No amount of un-"slam-dunking" creates a preponderance in your favor. None, even a full-fledged refutation of the carbon dating evidence. This has been explained to you several times, so your ignorance of it cannot possibly be accidental. Stop the deliberate stalling and question-begging and do what you were told.
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 21st December 2015, 06:02 PM   #2186
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

You have never and likely never will impugn the 14C dating of the CIQ.

You don't even understand it. You cite people who don't understand it, and whose opinions you apparently don't even bother reading.

If you have evidence of authenticity, let us see it now.
__________________
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 21st December 2015, 06:07 PM   #2187
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,772
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.
Jabba, for you to gain even the slightest traction in this "debate" you need to show some positive evidence for a 1st century origin for the shroud. Without that your entire argument is moot.

I've asked you this before, but I'll try again - if there were no evidence for a 13th century date, how would you convince me that the shroud originated in the 1st century? What evidence could you produce that actually points towards a 1st century date? Forget the 14C dating, forget the D'Arcis memo, forget that the cloth is sized and gessoed, forget it all.

I'm standing in front of the Shroud of Turin, I know absolutely nothing about it, you tell me that it was the burial shroud of Jesus, and I ask, "How do you know?"

Convince me.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2015, 02:18 AM   #2188
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,350
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity.

Even if it did, it wouldn't, because you don't.
__________________
"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 22nd December 2015, 05:47 AM   #2189
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,099
This has of course all been said before. Ignored by Jabba each time but explained in a myriad of ways by many posters, many times. If this was a debate he might be vigorously questioning this position or arguing against it. To keep trying it on is dishonest.
__________________
'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 22nd December 2015, 07:11 AM   #2190
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,664
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.
Gosh. Where to begin? So much evidence for authenticity, so little time.
__________________
"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 22nd December 2015, 07:49 AM   #2191
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.
How about you stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsensical attempts at evasion and present the evidence you've been claiming you have? Or alternatively accept the reality that the shroud is a medieval fake.
__________________
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 22nd December 2015, 08:53 AM   #2192
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,634
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
How about you stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsensical attempts at evasion and present the evidence you've been claiming you have? Or alternatively accept the reality that the shroud is a medieval fake.
Apparently someone told him that he's not allowed to do this until he's managed to cast sufficient doubt on the "slam dunk" carbon dating evidence. He'd make substantial progress on this if only people would engage in effective debateTM and follow each tiny thread's attempt to pick a hole in the carbon dating evidence to the very end without stopping it in its tracks with facts
The Don 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 22nd December 2015, 09:45 AM   #2193
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Apparently someone told him that he's not allowed to do this until he's managed to cast sufficient doubt on the "slam dunk" carbon dating evidence. He'd make substantial progress on this if only people would engage in effective debateTM and follow each tiny thread's attempt to pick a hole in the carbon dating evidence to the very end without stopping it in its tracks with facts
Who would have told him such a thing?
__________________
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 22nd December 2015, 12:28 PM   #2194
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

No, any attempt to discredit conflicting evidence should be done after you have presented your own positive evidence. Otherwise you are no closer to a first century date.

It has been asked many times, but please (for the sake of this discussion) present your evidence toward a first century date of the shroud. It is no good saying the shroud isn't 700 years old if you never say why it is ~2000 years old.
Monza 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 22nd December 2015, 12:31 PM   #2195
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,664
Jabba has admitted he "has no such evidence."
__________________
"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 22nd December 2015, 03:26 PM   #2196
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Discussion Format

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Baseless hypotheticals do nothing to advance debate.
Unless you actually have some evidence for authenticity, it does not matter what hypotheticals you create.
- I should have posed one claim at a time (and phrased the one slightly differently). Do you accept that in a debate it is very useful to make the specific disagreements as explicit as possible?
__________________
"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 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 22nd December 2015, 03:32 PM   #2197
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,611
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I should have posed one claim at a time (and phrased the one slightly differently). Do you accept that in a debate it is very useful to make the specific disagreements as explicit as possible?
It's better to just skip ahead to where you present evidence for you claims.
Craig4 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 22nd December 2015, 04:54 PM   #2198
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,237
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I should have posed one claim at a time (and phrased the one slightly differently). Do you accept that in a debate it is very useful to make the specific disagreements as explicit as possible?
I don not agree that debate is the appropriate tool to resolve the claims in this thread.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 22nd December 2015, 06:31 PM   #2199
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,470
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I should have posed one claim at a time (and phrased the one slightly differently). Do you accept that in a debate it is very useful to make the specific disagreements as explicit as possible?
We know what you don't agree with. Now, what is the evidence for it being the burial cloth of Jesus?

Remember, you have claimed that the reason we should question the C14 dating is because the preponderance of evidence for authenticity. yet, you have presented none.

We're waiting...
__________________
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 22nd December 2015, 06:43 PM   #2200
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I should have posed one claim at a time (and phrased the one slightly differently). Do you accept that in a debate it is very useful to make the specific disagreements as explicit as possible?
Do you accept that in a debate it is very useful to provide evidence supporting your claims? GET ON WITH IT!
__________________
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
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 01:02 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.