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 28th December 2015, 02:17 PM   #2241
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I don't think that I can honestly apply "probably" -- but, I do still give the shroud a 50/50 chance of being authentic...
Totally absurd, considering that you have admitted you have no direct evidene.

Quote:
- Obviously, I still want it to be authentic. Whatever, I still want to know the truth about it. And also, I still think that we humans need to develop an effective method of public debate -- that I have at least the beginnings of such a method -- and, that the shroud controversy makes for a perfect subject for analyzing the ins and outs of debate.
What makes you think the method of debate can change the FACT of whether the shroud is authentic or not? The fact is a fact, no matter how it is discussed, or even if it isn't discussed at all.

Quote:
- And, as you already know, I believe that my method hasn't worked so far because you guys won't let me apply it fully. But then, I also think that I may be learning how to skirt your obstacles... We'll see.
Jabba, what makes you think you get to decide how a debate is undertaken here? Is this your forum? Are you in a position of majority here? Are you in a position of authority here?

Obviously the answer to all three is NO. You have to take what you can get, or get out.

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 28th December 2015, 03:15 PM   #2242
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,009
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Jabba, please present you evidence that makes you think there is a 50/50 chance the CUQ covered the body of the person you think of as Jesus. What is it that makes you think this?
Oh, right. Like that has the remotest chance of happening.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
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 28th December 2015, 08:41 PM   #2243
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,906
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Oh dear.

[...]

Moreover, the use of the word "controversy" is somewhat amusing in the context of this thread. A cynic might conclude that the purpose of your bluff and bluster is to create the appearance of controversy when none exists, so that you can point at it and proclaim the issue unresolved. Such a tactic is well within the behavioral parameters you've already demonstrated in this thread.
Bingo.
__________________
"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 28th December 2015, 09:15 PM   #2244
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
<snip to remove content that was, apparently, moderated while I was composing>
My Dear Mr. Savage:

I am sorry to say that this last post of yours contains many things to which a reasonable person will, even must, object.

First, I remind you that you do not have "multiple opponents"; you have only one: reality.

Second, I beleive that you are misusing the term, "colleagues". There are as many reasons to point out the errors in your apporach and your reasoning as there are people doing so. You may, in fact, feel as if a vast group of posters are allied against you; in fact, there is no such alliance.

Third, you have yet to provide a single bit of evidence that positively indicates that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. You have made a habit of continued equivocation, ignoring the demonstrable fact that casting unsupported aspersions on the 14C date, or calumniating Mme F-L and Dr. McCrone, do nothing to indicate a 1st Century C.E. date for the CIQ; nor do they undermine a mid-13th Century C.E. date. The 14C dating is a consistent part of a bigger pattern: the cloth itself, the style of the representative (and, I remind you, undistorted) image, the hisotrical record, the papal declaration of fraud; all of these and more point to a medieval date. You have yet to provide any evidence that says otherwise. Please do be aware that conjectures about "...patching..." or the Whangers' fanciful pareidolia are not evidence of a 1st Century C.E. date. (NB: even if the "coins" [for instance] that the Whangers claim to be able to identify were, in fact, images of 1st Century C.E. coins, that only provides a limit on how old the CIQ could be. I could be buried tomorrow with a 1st Centiry C.E. coin in my pocket...)

Fourth, and very telling, you do not listen when it is explained to you why your sources (sources, it pains me to add, that you often have not even read) do not constitute evidence. As mentioned above, merely speculating about supposed weaknesses of the 14C date does nothing to indicate that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. Smearing Dr. McCrone and Mme F-L does nothing to indicate that teh CIQ is ~2000 years old. You really, really ought to consider presenting what positive evidence you have.

Fifth, your "branch about your "Effective Debate" technique would, in fact, be unsupportably off-topic for this thread. I, for one, will report any attempt at such a derail, and will agitate to have it removed form the thread. You had the opportunity to demonstrate your "Effective Debate" technique, in an unprecedented, protected, and moderated thread; a thread you, personally, abandoned. I wonder why it is that you have not admitted to, and attempted to explain, your actions there. If you must do so, please conduct that "branch" in a separate thread. Before you begin, do consider your experiences in your "immortality" thread(s), and in your "Effective Debate" threads; and ponder whether you have the resources to assay two discussions at once.

In my humble opinion, what you really ought to do is find, and present, positive evidence (empirical, objective, testable, practical evidence, attested to by neutral scholars) that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old. Without that, all the rest is vanities (saith the ex-preacher).

I continue to remain,

Patiently 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; 28th December 2015 at 09:18 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 29th December 2015, 04:10 AM   #2245
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post

Third, you have yet to provide a single bit of evidence that positively indicates that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. You have made a habit of continued equivocation, ignoring the demonstrable fact that casting unsupported aspersions on the 14C date, or calumniating Mme F-L and Dr. McCrone, do nothing to indicate a 1st Century C.E. date for the CIQ; nor do they undermine a mid-13th Century C.E. date.
The confusing system of Jabba's reasoning doesn't clarify the main stream of current sindonism: 90% of sindonists efforts are dedicated to disqualify the 14C dating. Sophisticated theories, such as the bio-plastic layer (Garza-Valdés), vanillin dating (Rogers), mechanical dating (Fanti) or invisible mending (Marino and Bedford) are developed with this aim. We have a new theory every month. There are two "curious" circumstances: they are mutually incompatible and there is not a sindonist consensus after more of 30 years of attempts. This is a serious objection against the critics of the radiocarbon dating 1988.

The sindonists usually reply that the sceptics have a similar problem: they cannot explain how the image of the shroud was made. They are unable to do a satisfactory reply with medieval resources. There is not a sceptical consensus about this question.

I think this is the strongest position of sindonism. Is it really strong?
David Mo 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 29th December 2015, 04:36 AM   #2246
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,772
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The confusing system of Jabba's reasoning doesn't clarify the main stream of current sindonism: 90% of sindonists efforts are dedicated to disqualify the 14C dating. Sophisticated theories, such as the bio-plastic layer (Garza-Valdés), vanillin dating (Rogers), mechanical dating (Fanti) or invisible mending (Marino and Bedford) are developed with this aim. We have a new theory every month. There are two "curious" circumstances: they are mutually incompatible and there is not a sindonist consensus after more of 30 years of attempts. This is a serious objection against the critics of the radiocarbon dating 1988.

The sindonists usually reply that the sceptics have a similar problem: they cannot explain how the image of the shroud was made. They are unable to do a satisfactory reply with medieval resources. There is not a sceptical consensus about this question.

I think this is the strongest position of sindonism. Is it really strong?

If it is the strongest position of sindonism then it shows just how pathetically weak the sindonist position is!
__________________
"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 29th December 2015, 05:18 AM   #2247
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 David Mo View Post
The confusing system of Jabba's reasoning doesn't clarify the main stream of current sindonism: 90% of sindonists efforts are dedicated to disqualify the 14C dating. Sophisticated theories, such as the bio-plastic layer (Garza-Valdés), vanillin dating (Rogers), mechanical dating (Fanti) or invisible mending (Marino and Bedford) are developed with this aim. We have a new theory every month. There are two "curious" circumstances: they are mutually incompatible and there is not a sindonist consensus after more of 30 years of attempts. This is a serious objection against the critics of the radiocarbon dating 1988.

The sindonists usually reply that the sceptics have a similar problem: they cannot explain how the image of the shroud was made. They are unable to do a satisfactory reply with medieval resources. There is not a sceptical consensus about this question.

I think this is the strongest position of sindonism. Is it really strong?
No, it is not a strong position, at all. The committed sidonist acts as if casting enough ungrounded aspersion upon the 14C date demonstrates support for "authenticity"; when, in reality, if the 14C dating had never been done there is still no indication, none, that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

And, as has been pointed out to Mr. Savage, even if the CIQ were conclusively demonstrated to be ~2000 years old, that does nothing to address all of the other deficiencies of the image.
__________________
"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 29th December 2015, 05:53 AM   #2248
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,344
- Deflection, obfuscation, ignoring criticism, waffling...

I'll be back.
__________________
'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 29th December 2015, 12:28 PM   #2249
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,083
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Oh dear.

You still seem to be operating under the delusion that debate is the correct method to use, and that your variant of debating is the best way to go about it.

Once again: debate is a method that uses rhetoric to sway an opinion, not a method for weighing evidence to arrive at a conclusion.

Moreover, the use of the word "controversy" is somewhat amusing in the context of this thread. A cynic might conclude that the purpose of your bluff and bluster is to create the appearance of controversy when none exists, so that you can point at it and proclaim the issue unresolved. Such a tactic is well within the behavioral parameters you've already demonstrated in this thread.
I am that cynic.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 29th December 2015, 02:04 PM   #2250
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,972
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Oh dear.

You still seem to be operating under the delusion that debate is the correct method to use, and that your variant of debating is the best way to go about it.

Once again: debate is a method that uses rhetoric to sway an opinion, not a method for weighing evidence to arrive at a conclusion.

Moreover, the use of the word "controversy" is somewhat amusing in the context of this thread. A cynic might conclude that the purpose of your bluff and bluster is to create the appearance of controversy when none exists, so that you can point at it and proclaim the issue unresolved. Such a tactic is well within the behavioral parameters you've already demonstrated in this thread.
Once again Jabba, Airline pilots don't consider what the Flat Earth Society thinks when they plan their route from Frankfurt to Seattle. Having an objection and it being meaningful aren't the same thing.
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 29th December 2015, 02:07 PM   #2251
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,344
There is no engagement from Jabba with his critics therefore no debate.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 29th December 2015 at 02:21 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 29th December 2015, 02:12 PM   #2252
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
Seven-day break, folks.
__________________
"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 29th December 2015, 02:41 PM   #2253
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,972
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Seven-day break, folks.
I have mixed feelings that he got suspended for a response to one of my posts.
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 29th December 2015, 03:59 PM   #2254
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,739
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
I have mixed feelings that he got suspended for a response to one of my posts.
I doubt it- it was just the same old same old. Don't feel bad (assuming that this describes one of your mixed feelings, rather than a mix of elation and pride, for example). If "body of work" applies to any one, it certainly applies to the aggregate of Jabba's posts.
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 29th December 2015, 04:44 PM   #2255
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,972
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I doubt it- it was just the same old same old. Don't feel bad (assuming that this describes one of your mixed feelings, rather than a mix of elation and pride, for example). If "body of work" applies to any one, it certainly applies to the aggregate of Jabba's posts.
My mixed feelings are between "ha ha" and being bummed about seven days of not poking the bear. You see, deep down, I'm very shallow.
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 29th December 2015, 06:20 PM   #2256
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,906
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Seven-day break, folks.
Cool Hand Jabba spends a week in the box.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 29th December 2015 at 06:25 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 29th December 2015, 06:24 PM   #2257
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,906
NVM
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 29th December 2015 at 06:26 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 30th December 2015, 02:24 AM   #2258
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
If it is the strongest position of sindonism then it shows just how pathetically weak the sindonist position is!
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
No, it is not a strong position, at all.
Well, you can say "the less weak".
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
The committed sidonist acts as if casting enough ungrounded aspersion upon the 14C date demonstrates support for "authenticity"; when, in reality, if the 14C dating had never been done there is still no indication, none, that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

And, as has been pointed out to Mr. Savage, even if the CIQ were conclusively demonstrated to be ~2000 years old, that does nothing to address all of the other deficiencies of the image.
I am afraid I have not explained it correctly. The argument arises in the context of a pragmatic conception of scientific truth.

A scientific theory is verified when produces accurate predictions and affords manipulate (control) the things. There is not any scientific theory about the shroud that has been able to produce an exact replica of the Shroud with medieval resources. This situation goes on from a century and after more than ten failed attempts of replying it. Therefore, the Shroud is unavailable to science.

Obviously this doesn’t refute directly the 1988 dating, but introduces the mystery and opens the way to alternative knowledge.

This line of reasoning seems to me harder than the efforts to invalidate the 1988 dating.
David Mo 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 30th December 2015, 02:49 AM   #2259
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,922
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
There is not any scientific theory about the shroud that has been able to produce an exact replica of the Shroud with medieval resources.
The best that could be done, even with full knowledge of how the original was created, would be to produce an exact replica of the Shroud as it looked when it was originally created 800 years ago. You would then need to wait 800 years, during which you would need to subject your replica to the identical environments and treatments the original underwent, before you could reasonably expect it to be an exact replica.

We cannot produce an exact replica of any centuries old art work as it looks now. We cannot deduce anything about such art works from that fact.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 30th December 2015, 03:15 AM   #2260
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Seven-day break, folks.
Not very long ago, I mentioned that we might be approaching a melt-down. Seems Jabba is aiming for a suicide by moderator. During the last several weeks, Jabba has made no attempt at all at any kind of argument. Instead, he has made diversions, attacked the form, and lamented that he is overwhelmed by enemies.

Once he achieves a banning, he can enjoy martyrdom with his friends, claiming that he was ganged up upon and silenced because skeptics did not want to have an effective debate[tm] .

Sad.

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 30th December 2015, 03:25 AM   #2261
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
There is not any scientific theory about the shroud that has been able to produce an exact replica of the Shroud with medieval resources.
The reason is that there is not enough data. Science has not has unhindered access to the shroud, so we cannot make a conclusive theory about how it was made. We cannt even know what it may have looked like when it was new.
Quote:
Obviously this doesn’t refute directly the 1988 dating, but introduces the mystery and opens the way to alternative knowledge.
It does not refute the C14 dating at all. It doesn't even weaken it. There are probably more medieval artefacts that we cannot precisely replicate than ones we can.

It does not open the way to alternative knowledge. Just to baseless speculation.

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 30th December 2015, 11:00 AM   #2262
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,262
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
A scientific theory is verified when produces accurate predictions and affords manipulate (control) the things. There is not any scientific theory about the shroud that has been able to produce an exact replica of the Shroud with medieval resources. This situation goes on from a century and after more than ten failed attempts of replying it. Therefore, the Shroud is unavailable to science.



Obviously this doesn’t refute directly the 1988 dating, but introduces the mystery and opens the way to alternative knowledge.


No, it would open the way to never-ending Shround-of-the-gaps assertions by Shroudies. Can you imagine a replica sufficiently faithful to the original such that a dedicated Shroudie would accept it? I can't, and I don't think that I'm being the least bit cynical.

ETA: OK, yes, considering the definition it is cynical. But I think it's reasonable based on my experience in this thread.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba

Last edited by ferd burfle; 30th December 2015 at 11:08 AM.
ferd burfle 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 30th December 2015, 11:12 AM   #2263
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,739
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Well, you can say "the less weak".

I am afraid I have not explained it correctly. The argument arises in the context of a pragmatic conception of scientific truth.

A scientific theory is verified when produces accurate predictions and affords manipulate (control) the things. There is not any scientific theory about the shroud that has been able to produce an exact replica of the Shroud with medieval resources. This situation goes on from a century and after more than ten failed attempts of replying it. Therefore, the Shroud is unavailable to science.

Obviously this doesn’t refute directly the 1988 dating, but introduces the mystery and opens the way to alternative knowledge.

This line of reasoning seems to me harder than the efforts to invalidate the 1988 dating.
1. As already mentioned, to duplicate the SOT now could only produce a young SOT replica, which would differ from the old SOT if only for that reason.

2. If you actually look at the claims of the pro-authenticity SOT advocates, the things about the SOT that they claim cannot be reproduced are in fact not true of the SOT itself- they exist only in their imaginations. Example: "The original image was created without the use of paint/pigment" so they claim that one would have to reproduce such an image without paint or pigment. Well, there is a lot of evidence that the original has pigment/paint on it.

3. As mentioned many times, even if one were to throw up one's hands and state that the Shroud could not be duplicated today, that doesn't mean that it is Christ's burial shroud in any way. Let's even say only a miracle could create the SOT (not true, but okay for argument): then it could any miracle- an image of a very virtuous knight in 1203 AD, an image of Mohammed, an image of a graveyard marker created by a ghost, etc. Even more- duplication is not a requirement for a scientific assessment. We can't duplicate a supernova, or even understand exactly what happens during the event, but science fully accepts supernovas.

Last edited by Giordano; 30th December 2015 at 11:13 AM.
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 30th December 2015, 01:01 PM   #2264
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,115
Martyred by the Mods? Yes, possibly that's Jabba's intent, whether altogether consciously or otherwise.

Could it happen to a nicer guy?
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett 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 30th December 2015, 01:25 PM   #2265
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
1. As already mentioned, to duplicate the SOT now could only produce a young SOT replica, which would differ from the old SOT if only for that reason.
Also, it's been done:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe....turin.shroud/

Anyone claiming the shroud can't be replicated is either lying or hasn't done their research.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave 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 30th December 2015, 06:16 PM   #2266
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,906
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Well, you can say "the less weak".

I am afraid I have not explained it correctly. The argument arises in the context of a pragmatic conception of scientific truth.

A scientific theory is verified when produces accurate predictions and affords manipulate (control) the things. There is not any scientific theory about the shroud that has been able to produce an exact replica of the Shroud with medieval resources. This situation goes on from a century and after more than ten failed attempts of replying it. Therefore, the Shroud is unavailable to science.

Obviously this doesn’t refute directly the 1988 dating, but introduces the mystery and opens the way to alternative knowledge.

This line of reasoning seems to me harder than the efforts to invalidate the 1988 dating.
I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
__________________
"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 31st December 2015, 01:13 AM   #2267
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
2. If you actually look at the claims of the pro-authenticity SOT advocates, the things about the SOT that they claim cannot be reproduced are in fact not true of the SOT itself- they exist only in their imaginations. Example: "The original image was created without the use of paint/pigment" so they claim that one would have to reproduce such an image without paint or pigment. Well, there is a lot of evidence that the original has pigment/paint on it.
A “ lot of evidence”? I know only one: McCrone enquiry that was denied by Adler.
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
3. As mentioned many times, even if one were to throw up one's hands and state that the Shroud could not be duplicated today, that doesn't mean that it is Christ's burial shroud in any way. Let's even say only a miracle could create the SOT (not true, but okay for argument): then it could any miracle- an image of a very virtuous knight in 1203 AD, an image of Mohammed, an image of a graveyard marker created by a ghost, etc.
I agree. But the door is still open to the miracle or paranormal effects. (I don't believe in miracles or paranormal. I am intending to close de door).
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Even more- duplication is not a requirement for a scientific assessment. We can't duplicate a supernova, or even understand exactly what happens during the event, but science fully accepts supernovas.
You are right, but in the case of astronomy the control is largely replaced by prediction. This is not the case of the Shroud of Turin. Even more, in astrology we have some evident reasons that hamper the manipulation (large scale of the objects). This is not the case of the Shroud of Turin.

Last edited by David Mo; 31st December 2015 at 01:18 AM.
David Mo 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 31st December 2015, 01:15 AM   #2268
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Also, it's been done:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe....turin.shroud/

Anyone claiming the shroud can't be replicated is either lying or hasn't done their research.
Garlaschelli's replica is not identical to the Shroud of Turin. Some features (superficiaity and placing of the blood stains) are different.
David Mo 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 31st December 2015, 01:33 AM   #2269
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The best that could be done, even with full knowledge of how the original was created, would be to produce an exact replica of the Shroud as it looked when it was originally created 800 years ago. .
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
The reason is that there is not enough data. (...)

It does not open the way to alternative knowledge. Just to baseless speculation.

Hans
I agree,but the correct answer to both arguments is scepticism: we don't know anything about the Shroud, except its date. The science has nothing to say about the Shroud of Turin. This explains the constant attacks against the 14C dating.

My question: Is there any non scientific argument against the authenticity of the Shroud? Is there some kind of non sicentific argument in favour of the painting theory?

Last edited by David Mo; 31st December 2015 at 01:35 AM.
David Mo 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 31st December 2015, 06:30 AM   #2270
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 David Mo View Post
I agree,but the correct answer to both arguments is scepticism: we don't know anything about the Shroud, except its date. The science has nothing to say about the Shroud of Turin. This explains the constant attacks against the 14C dating.

My question: Is there any non scientific argument against the authenticity of the Shroud? Is there some kind of non sicentific argument in favour of the painting theory?
There are manifold arguments againt authenticity, and in favor of the painting (or daubing, or block transfer) theories; many of them tend to overlap.

To delineate but a few:

1. There is no reliable record of the CIQ (Cloth In Question) before the 13th Century C.E. (or so).

2. The CIQ was declared a clever work of art by a pope, who claimed to know the identity of the painter.

3. The linen of the CIQ resembles cloths of the mid-13th Century C.E. to a far greater extent than it resembles any fabric known to date from the first Century C.E.

4. The image on the CIQ shows none of the distortion and lateral expansion that would result from being wrapped around a three-dimensional object.

5. The CIQ does not, in any way, match the description of the "strips" of linen said to be said to have been wrapped around the body of MJ.

6. The supposed preparation of the body does not match the known funerary practices of the 1st Centutry C.E.; if the body had been washed and prepared according "the customs of the Jews", it would not have still been bleeding.

7. The representational image on the CIQ matches the Byzantine style of exaggeration and elongation.

8. The representational image is anatomically ridiculous, form the length of the arms to the representations of the hands and on to the distinctly european cast of the features.

9. The representational image is posturally impossible; the "shroud slough" cannot be duplicated by an actual body lying on a flat surface.

10. The "hair" of the representational image falls neatly toward the feet, as if the body were presented erect, instead of falling behind the head as would happen with an actual, supine body.

11. There are reasons to question whether the HJ (even had he been a "nazarite" would have had, in fact, long, flowing, straight hair).

12. The images of "blood" on the CIQ are represented as flowing in directions that ignore the fct of gravity.

13. The images of "blood" on the CIQ are represented as flowing in ways that ignore capillary action and fluid dynamics, as well as the adsorptive interaction of actual hair and actual blood.

14. The substances detected on the CIQ are consistent with common medieval pigments, sizes, and gessoes.

...and so on.

Some of those may be too "scientific" to fulfill your request; but all are, in fact, consistent with and/or indicative of a medieval image rendered on a sized and gessoed surface.

The arguments for "authenticity" are, in essence, pareidoilia (The Whangers claim to be able to identify 1st Century C.E. coins laid on the eyes of the "body"); calumny ("Mme. F-L was incompetent, dishonest and part of the conspiracy"); or fabulous special pleading ("a burst of 'resurrection energy' suspended the corpse between the sheets, while much of the actual 14C was transmuted to 14N by 'neutron irradiation' "). Their common characteristic is that they are driven by the assumed consequent, rather than by evidence.
__________________
"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; 31st December 2015 at 07:03 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 31st December 2015, 06:56 AM   #2271
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,562
So, Slowvehicle, what do you think?



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 31st December 2015, 07:02 AM   #2272
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 Rincewind View Post
So, Slowvehicle, what do you think?



Well played! Good Form!

You wins one internetz.

(now I gotta mop up coffee...)
__________________
"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; 31st December 2015 at 07:06 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 31st December 2015, 07:29 AM   #2273
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
There are manifold arguments againt authenticity, and in favor of the painting (or daubing, or block transfer) theories; many of them tend to overlap.

To delineate but a few:

1. There is no reliable record of the CIQ (Cloth In Question) before the 13th Century C.E. (or so).

2. The CIQ was declared a clever work of art by a pope, who claimed to know the identity of the painter.

3. The linen of the CIQ resembles cloths of the mid-13th Century C.E. to a far greater extent than it resembles any fabric known to date from the first Century C.E.

4. The image on the CIQ shows none of the distortion and lateral expansion that would result from being wrapped around a three-dimensional object.

5. The CIQ does not, in any way, match the description of the "strips" of linen said to be said to have been wrapped around the body of MJ.

6. The supposed preparation of the body does not match the known funerary practices of the 1st Centutry C.E.; if the body had been washed and prepared according "the customs of the Jews", it would not have still been bleeding.

7. The representational image on the CIQ matches the Byzantine style of exaggeration and elongation.

8. The representational image is anatomically ridiculous, form the length of the arms to the representations of the hands and on to the distinctly european cast of the features.

9. The representational image is posturally impossible; the "shroud slough" cannot be duplicated by an actual body lying on a flat surface.

10. The "hair" of the representational image falls neatly toward the feet, as if the body were presented erect, instead of falling behind the head as would happen with an actual, supine body.

11. There are reasons to question whether the HJ (even had he been a "nazarite" would have had, in fact, long, flowing, straight hair).

12. The images of "blood" on the CIQ are represented as flowing in directions that ignore the fct of gravity.

13. The images of "blood" on the CIQ are represented as flowing in ways that ignore capillary action and fluid dynamics, as well as the adsorptive interaction of actual hair and actual blood.

14. The substances detected on the CIQ are consistent with common medieval pigments, sizes, and gessoes.

...and so on.

Some of those may be too "scientific" to fulfill your request; but all are, in fact, consistent with and/or indicative of a medieval image rendered on a sized and gessoed surface.

The arguments for "authenticity" are, in essence, pareidoilia (The Whangers claim to be able to identify 1st Century C.E. coins laid on the eyes of the "body"); calumny ("Mme. F-L was incompetent, dishonest and part of the conspiracy"); or fabulous special pleading ("a burst of 'resurrection energy' suspended the corpse between the sheets, while much of the actual 14C was transmuted to 14N by 'neutron irradiation' "). Their common characteristic is that they are driven by the assumed consequent, rather than by evidence.


Nice work, but since Jabba has found that the preponderance of the evidence is in the authenticity pan®, he will easily refute all your points and present all sorts of evidence. Any time now. Of course he may "accidentally" get banned before he has an opportunity to present it. Poor guy. He's been trying so hard to present his strong evidence. Did I mention it is preponderant?
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – 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 31st December 2015, 07:46 AM   #2274
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Garlaschelli's replica is not identical to the Shroud of Turin. Some features (superficiaity and placing of the blood stains) are different.
So nothing that would indicate we can't replicate the shroud.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave 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 1st January 2016, 03:12 AM   #2275
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
There are manifold arguments againt authenticity, and in favor of the painting (or daubing, or block transfer) theories; many of them tend to overlap.

To delineate but a few:

1. There is no reliable record of the CIQ (Cloth In Question) before the 13th Century C.E. (or so).

2. The CIQ was declared a clever work of art by a pope, who claimed to know the identity of the painter.

3. The linen of the CIQ resembles cloths of the mid-13th Century C.E. to a far greater extent than it resembles any fabric known to date from the first Century C.E.

4. The image on the CIQ shows none of the distortion and lateral expansion that would result from being wrapped around a three-dimensional object.

5. The CIQ does not, in any way, match the description of the "strips" of linen said to be said to have been wrapped around the body of MJ.

6. The supposed preparation of the body does not match the known funerary practices of the 1st Centutry C.E.; if the body had been washed and prepared according "the customs of the Jews", it would not have still been bleeding.

7. The representational image on the CIQ matches the Byzantine style of exaggeration and elongation.

8. The representational image is anatomically ridiculous, form the length of the arms to the representations of the hands and on to the distinctly european cast of the features.

9. The representational image is posturally impossible; the "shroud slough" cannot be duplicated by an actual body lying on a flat surface.

10. The "hair" of the representational image falls neatly toward the feet, as if the body were presented erect, instead of falling behind the head as would happen with an actual, supine body.

11. There are reasons to question whether the HJ (even had he been a "nazarite" would have had, in fact, long, flowing, straight hair).

12. The images of "blood" on the CIQ are represented as flowing in directions that ignore the fct of gravity.

13. The images of "blood" on the CIQ are represented as flowing in ways that ignore capillary action and fluid dynamics, as well as the adsorptive interaction of actual hair and actual blood.

14. The substances detected on the CIQ are consistent with common medieval pigments, sizes, and gessoes.

...and so on.

Some of those may be too "scientific" to fulfill your request; but all are, in fact, consistent with and/or indicative of a medieval image rendered on a sized and gessoed surface.

The arguments for "authenticity" are, in essence, pareidoilia (The Whangers claim to be able to identify 1st Century C.E. coins laid on the eyes of the "body"); calumny ("Mme. F-L was incompetent, dishonest and part of the conspiracy"); or fabulous special pleading ("a burst of 'resurrection energy' suspended the corpse between the sheets, while much of the actual 14C was transmuted to 14N by 'neutron irradiation' "). Their common characteristic is that they are driven by the assumed consequent, rather than by evidence.
Too much.
You include dubious facts (2, 6 ), exaggerations (3), vague sentences (5), non-conclusive sentences (7, 8, 11), debated facts (14)... All these evidences have been questioned by sindonists long time ago.
I think a most suitable strategy should be focused on strong points. In your scheme the strong points are 4, 10, 12, 13.
Point 4, 10 forces the sindonist to claim miraculous events if correctly developed. The “blood rivulets” (12 and 13) lead to a factual impossibility. (Very interesting -and obvious: Garlaschelli and Borrini: https://youtu.be/SNzVc1MqJ2s
; Garlaschelli, Luigi & Borrini, Matteo: “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin:A Preliminary Examination of the Left Forearm to Reconstruct the Crucifixion Practice”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 66th Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, February 17-22, 2014; http://www.aafs.org/sites/default/fi...roceedings.pdf ).

I think this line of attack makes irrelevant all the never ending debates with sindonists about the nature of the stains of blood, the invisible mending, the coins in the eyes and other sindonist topics. Yes, the sindonist can take refuge in miracle claims. (Cf. Gilbert Lavoie or John Jackson), but this upsets the bulk of the “sindonologs” because their alleged science became irrelevant. The “sindonology” is a myth of the twentieth century because its acritical devotion of techno-science. It is a myth built with slot machines. The sindonists need a “scientific” confirmation of the existence of God. Without this, they become simple believers and remain in front of the philosophical/epistemological problems of their belief. They don’t like this. Too heavy.
Therefore, if you want to put an end to a discussion with a sindonist, you should bring on the table simple questions as the floating hair, the blood trails on the nape or the absence of marks of crush in the buttocks due to the corporal weight.
Every time that I have brought those questions up to the sindonists they tried to change of subject. Significative.

Last edited by David Mo; 1st January 2016 at 03:15 AM.
David Mo 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 1st January 2016, 04:03 AM   #2276
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,009
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Too much.
You include dubious facts (2, 6 ),
Dubious? The Pope at the time declared it fake, fact. The CiQ does not match funereal practice of the time, nor the biblical description, fact. You have an evidentiary mountain to climb if you claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
exaggerations (3),
Nope. That weave is unknown until medieval times. If you have evidence that such a weave was present in the Levant 2,000 years ago, please, share. Nobody else has ever seen such.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
vague sentences (5),
Seems pretty clear to me. No such burial cloth has ever been seen anywhere else, it does not conform to burial methods of the period and frankly, it would be a stupid way to wrap a corpse.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
non-conclusive sentences (7, 8, 11),
Why? It is a typical Byzantine illustration, it is anatomically messed up and the hair style of preference at the time was short. So where is your problem?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
debated facts (14)...
Facts are not subject to debate.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
All these evidences have been questioned by sindonists long time ago.
And debunked long ago. Your point?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I think a most suitable strategy should be focused on strong points. In your scheme the strong points are 4, 10, 12, 13.
Point 4, 10 forces the sindonist to claim miraculous events if correctly developed. The “blood rivulets” (12 and 13) lead to a factual impossibility. (Very interesting -and obvious: Garlaschelli and Borrini: https://youtu.be/SNzVc1MqJ2s
; Garlaschelli, Luigi & Borrini, Matteo: “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin:A Preliminary Examination of the Left Forearm to Reconstruct the Crucifixion Practice”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 66th Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, February 17-22, 2014; http://www.aafs.org/sites/default/fi...roceedings.pdf ).
You are a believer? You want to direct the counter argument to where you think you can argue rather than the issues you know you cannot?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I think this line of attack makes irrelevant all the never ending debates with sindonists about the nature of the stains of blood, the invisible mending, the coins in the eyes and other sindonist topics. Yes, the sindonist can take refuge in miracle claims. (Cf. Gilbert Lavoie or John Jackson), but this upsets the bulk of the “sindonologs” because their alleged science became irrelevant. The “sindonology” is a myth of the twentieth century because its acritical devotion of techno-science. It is a myth built with slot machines. The sindonists need a “scientific” confirmation of the existence of God. Without this, they become simple believers and remain in front of the philosophical/epistemological problems of their belief.
It matters not what you think. What does the evidence say?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
They don’t like this. Too heavy.
It matters not what they like. What does the evidence say?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Therefore, if you want to put an end to a discussion with a sindonist, you should bring on the table simple questions as the floating hair, the blood trails on the nape or the absence of marks of crush in the buttocks due to the corporal weight.
You are advocating pandering to sindonists, ignoring evidence that shoots them in the foot and only debating that which they think they can argue when the eveidence is right in front of them. Do you think that's valid? Ignore the actual evidence so that one may focus on the arguable? Really?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Every time that I have brought those questions up to the sindonists they tried to change of subject. Significative.
And you are doing exactly the same thing. "Ignore the man behind the curtain". Well, sorry. The real world does not work that way. I refuse to ignore the man behind the curtain. I refuse to engage in the wantonly ignorant exercise that if we ignore some evidence then maybe...<insert woo here>.

The evidence is the evidence.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
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 1st January 2016, 04:10 AM   #2277
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,906
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Too much.
[...]
This discussion goes back to 2012. Have you read it?

If the answers disturb you, perhaps you should cease asking questions.
__________________
"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 1st January 2016, 04:55 AM   #2278
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,478
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
*snip*
Therefore, if you want to put an end to a discussion with a sindonist, you should bring on the table simple questions as the floating hair, the blood trails on the nape or the absence of marks of crush in the buttocks due to the corporal weight.
So you feel one should ignore all the objective evidence and concentrate on something vague. ..... You should get along fine with Jabba.

Anyhow, I have no particular need to put an end to the discussion. If I want that, I simply leave.

It is not my problem what these people want to believe. They want to discuss it with me, and since I do like debate, I tend to comply.

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 1st January 2016, 04:56 AM   #2279
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,762
According to his website, David believes the dirty tea towel to be a medieval fake.
__________________
"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 1st January 2016, 06:28 AM   #2280
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 David Mo View Post
Too much.
How very...odd. You dispute that there is "a lot of evidence" that the CIQ is a representational image; and yet, when presented with a précis of the evidences that the CIQ cannot physically be the "shroud" in which a body (any body) was "wrapped" after supposedly being crucified, you complain about being presented with "too much" evidence.

For a more exhaustive list of the evidence, look here.

I will overlook the fact that each one of your objections has, in fact, been addressed by multiple posters in this tortuous, 4-part thread, and simply respond to your objections. With facts.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You include dubious facts (2, 6 )...
(2)There is nothing "dubious" about the historical fact that Bishop D'Arcis reported to Pope Clement VII that the CIQ was a cleverly-wrought fake produced by an artist. Pope Clement's response was to allow the continued exhibition of the CIQ, but not as a relic; and to instruct the clergy that it should not be presented as the "actual shroud of Christ", but as an image of it.

(6)There is nothing "dubious" about he fact that, had the body supposedly "wrapped" in the CIQ been prepared "...following the Jewish burial custom..." (John 19:40, NJB), it would have been washed, and wrapped in strips of linen, with spices. The "body" represented on the CIQ is represented as bleeding copiously enough for blood to flow down its neck; this could not happen (ignoring for a moment the navïete of the representation of the "blood flows") if the body had been washed after its heart had stopped beating.

The CIQ is a sheet of linen that shows no hint of draping distortion; the image is flat. The gospels call for "strips" of linen (ὀθόνιον, literally the diminutive of ὀθόνη) that were "wrapped" (δέω) around the body. The CIQ does not conform with what is known about 1st. Century C.E. funerary practices, nor with what is presented in the 'god'spiel.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
...exaggerations (3)...
(3)The linen of the CIQ is of a size and fineness typical of medieval looms. The 3:1 weave is not represented in any piece of cloth known to date from the 1st Century C.E. This is not an "exaggeration" but a statement of fact. You are welcome to provide evidence of any authentically-dated 1st Century C.E. middle eastern cloth that demonstrated the 3:1 twill, but until you do, your characterization is demonstrably incorrect.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
...vague sentences (5)...
(5)The 'god'spiel attributed to "John" states that the body was "wrapped" (δέω) in "strips" (ὀθόνιον) of linen. The CIQ is a "sheet" (ὀθόνη) of linen; the representational image on it shows no trace of wrapping distortions.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
...non-conclusive sentences (7, 8, 11)...
I confess that I am not sure what you mean by "non-conclusive sentences". However:

(7)The Byzantine style of representational image is a style recognizable by anyone with even a layman's exposure to religious iconography. It is characterized by distinctly european facial feature, with characteristic elongations, simplifications, and iconic traditions. The representational image on the CIQ follows recognizable Byzantine traditions.

(8)The arms of the figure represented on the CIQ are not the same length; the posture of the CIQ cannot be assumed by an actual body on a flat surface; the features of the "face" on the CIQ are european ("gentile white guy, meek and mild..."), and not representational of middle eastern peoples of the 1st Century C.E.

(11)The wild-eyed prophet with untrimmed locks and beard is a medieval construct; the "hippie Jesus" in white robe and sandals is a 19th century construct; a Jewish man of the 1st Century CE (or, for that matter, any 1st Century C.E. asiatic Hebrew) would have been unlikely to have sported the long, flowing locks depicted on the CIQ (Xref. Cor. 11:14).

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
...debated facts (14)...
(14)I suggest you read Bright Earth, by Phillip Ball. The substances on the CIQ are representative of common medieval art supplies. The ubiquitous CaCO3 indicates that the linen was sized and gessoed, which is not something that would be done to any cloth intended to absorb fluids leaking from a corpse (size and gesso are used to prevent fluids from absorbing into the treated cloth).

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
All these evidences have been questioned by sindonists long time ago.
Of course sidonists disagree with the evidence; they do so, however, without the support of demonstrable fact. They do so in support of their assumed consequent, with incessant special pleading, instead of allowing the evidence to lead to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I think a most suitable strategy should be focused on strong points. In your scheme the strong points are 4, 10, 12, 13.
Point 4, 10 forces the sindonist to claim miraculous events if correctly developed. The “blood rivulets” (12 and 13) lead to a factual impossibility. (Very interesting -and obvious: Garlaschelli and Borrini: https://youtu.be/SNzVc1MqJ2s
; Garlaschelli, Luigi & Borrini, Matteo: “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin:A Preliminary Examination of the Left Forearm to Reconstruct the Crucifixion Practice”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 66th Annual Scientific Meeting, Seattle, February 17-22, 2014; http://www.aafs.org/sites/default/fi...roceedings.pdf ).

I think this line of attack makes irrelevant all the never ending debates with sindonists about the nature of the stains of blood, the invisible mending, the coins in the eyes and other sindonist topics. Yes, the sindonist can take refuge in miracle claims. (Cf. Gilbert Lavoie or John Jackson), but this upsets the bulk of the “sindonologs” because their alleged science became irrelevant. The “sindonology” is a myth of the twentieth century because its acritical devotion of techno-science. It is a myth built with slot machines. The sindonists need a “scientific” confirmation of the existence of God. Without this, they become simple believers and remain in front of the philosophical/epistemological problems of their belief. They don’t like this. Too heavy.
Therefore, if you want to put an end to a discussion with a sindonist, you should bring on the table simple questions as the floating hair, the blood trails on the nape or the absence of marks of crush in the buttocks due to the corporal weight.
Every time that I have brought those questions up to the sindonists they tried to change of subject. Significative.
You are, of course, welcome to whatever approach comforts you. I will continue as I have done, pointing out that there is not a single bit of evidence that actually supports "authenticity"; instead, every bit of evidence points to the fact that the CIQ is not a 1st Century C.E. cloth in which a 1st Century C.E. body was wrapped.

I would, however, encourage you to be more careful about misrepresenting facts that are presented you.
__________________
"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; 1st January 2016 at 06:34 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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:36 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.