Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Belz...]

The type of evidence that cause most people to believe the shroud is from the 14th century is exactly the same type of evidence that would be acceptable to support a first century (or any other) date. For example, the known provenance of the shroud goes to about the 14th century. The radiocarbon dating of the shroud indicates its manufacture to the 14th century. The type of weave and the size of the loom are consistent with linens made in the 14th century. So anything like this that points to a first century origin would be welcomed for discussion.

I think this is the most concise answer to Jabba's question.

Let's just watch now as he ignores it.

 

[Craig4]

- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.

What, wait? I thought you said you had evidence. What evidence you have, throw it out there. What point is there of sitting on anything now?

 

[Belz...]

What, wait? I thought you said you had evidence. What evidence you have, throw it out there. What point is there of sitting on anything now?

Because if he moves, you'll notice that he has no chair.

 

[SezMe]

- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.

Another diversion, Jabba? Are we now to talk about what constitutes "evidence"? Then maybe discuss quality of evidence? Then discuss the process by which such questions are explored?

No.

You said you have evidence of the tablecloth being ~2000 years old.

Present it.

 

[Loss Leader]

You said you have evidence of the tablecloth being ~2000 years old.

Present it.

If the shroud is authentic, then the carbon dating must be wrong.
The carbon dating is wrong.
Thus, the shroud is authentic.

 

[John Jones]

- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.

Scientific evidence, Jabba.

Reproducible, empirical, potentially falsifiable evidence. All those things you have failed to produce.

 

[grmcdorman]

If the shroud is authentic, then the carbon dating must be wrong.
The carbon dating is wrong.
Thus, the shroud is authentic.

That's not the impression I get. What I get is:

1. The shroud is authentic.
2. Because the shroud is authentic, all of these items ("blood", "wrong carbon dating", etc.) must indicate authenticity.
3. Therefore, all of these items indicate authenticity.
4. Therefore, the shroud is authentic.

#2 is presented as "if", but the reason for accepting ("blood not paint") or rejecting ("wrong carbon dating") seems to be "the shroud is authentic."

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/Refuted?

- What would you guys accept as "evidence"? Give me an example or two.

1) The fact that you don't know after so long researching this thing says it all.

2)How about some testimony of its existence from before the date we think it appeared in ? 3) Or how about some analysis of the physiological features of the image to show that it could have been a real man ? 4) Or how about a different dating method that gives a much older date ? Anything.

But you won't.

5) Well, if the C14 dating had indicated it was 2000 years old, that would be acceptable. 6) If you could show that the weave of the cloth matched that used 2000 years ago AND was inconsistent with things used at other times. These would be a good start for me. These are things that would be hard to explain unless the cloth is 2000 years old.

Now, since neither of these things I list above are true, it really doesn't help you.

7) But why should we bother? Why don't YOU give us some examples of what YOU consider acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old? YOU are the one who claims that there is such, so let's hear it.

8) I know you listed a bunch of things last week or so, which I addressed point-by-point indicating that none of it actually requires the cloth to be 2000 years old.

9) It's really silly to ask us what we would accept as evidence for a 2000 year old cloth, because we don't don't know of anything that is evidence for it being 2000 years old. If we knew there was acceptable evidence for a 2000 year old cloth, we would be considering the possibility. And we wouldn't have to ask you to provide some.

10) That's because he can't. As I note in my response, we don't know of any acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old. Unless he's been hiding something back, it just doesn't exist. Of course he can't provide it.

Evidence of what? The age? 11) How about a recorded provenance dating back 2000 years? How about ¹⁴C dating - oh, we already have that.

Seconded.

That said, any evidence you provide has to fit the following criteria:

12) 1) It must be new. ALL evidence you have presented in this thread have been thoroughly addressed, and to present them again is dishonest.
13) 2) It must directly relate to the age of the shroud. It can't relate to ANY other aspect of the shroud, including the image.
14) 3) It must be independently verifiable. Meaning, it cannot rely solely on your opinion.
15) 4) It must fit with established scientific sampling procedures. The C14 data did. The organic chemistry analysis (giving it the best description possible) did not.

16) Anything that fit those four criteria would at least be worth looking at. Anything that fails any of these is not.

17) An example of something that would count would be an inventory of relics in a church that is known to not be forged (dated properly) and which lists the shroud on the items, and which dates from the first century AD. 18) Alternatively, stable isotopic dating presenting a 1st century AD date would be worth discussing. Stuff like that.

Jabba: Dinwar's answer is a very good place for you to start. I'll also add that I would like you to address a fundamental issue with your assertions. 18) For instance: do you understand that even if it were proven that there was blood on the shroud, that says nothing about the date? 19) Do you understand that even if it were proven that the cloth was wrapped in a "real live dead person", that says nothing about the date?

20) What evidence would convince you that the shroud is not authentic? 21) Are you even capable of entertaining the idea?

22) One can postulate various magic effects that might alter the Carbon-14 date (the often mentioned Noodly Appendage plays around with isotope ratios, I believe) but an image that can't be of a person means that even if it was 2000 years old it wasn't an image of a person.
ETA:
No more than the image on the right could be of a person.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1558acb3ac05b3.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks, Darat

There's plenty of evidence around, it's just that it doesn't support your assertions. 23) This leads us to believe that your assertions are wrong, but for some reason it leads you to believe that the evidence is wrong.

24) The type of evidence that cause most people to believe the shroud is from the 14th century is exactly the same type of evidence that would be acceptable to support a first century (or any other) date. For example, the known provenance of the shroud goes to about the 14th century. The radiocarbon dating of the shroud indicates its manufacture to the 14th century. The type of weave and the size of the loom are consistent with linens made in the 14th century. So anything like this that points to a first century origin would be welcomed for discussion.

25) Hold on, you guys.

You guys, hold on.

I mean, guys. Guys.

Hold on. What if--what if--just bear with me here, guys.

No, seriously. I have an idea. What if--ready?

Ok. Here it is. Here's my idea.

What if...

You guys, what if Jesus's crucifixion death mask went forward in time to be miraculously imprinted on a bolt of cloth in 14th-century Turin?

I mean, you guys! You guys, wait!

I mean, the shroud could be authentically an image of Jesus and legitimately from the 14th century!

You're welcome.

I think this is the most concise answer to Jabba's question.

Let's just watch now as he ignores it.

- I count 25 different questions and objections to my last response (within the first 4 hrs and 30 mins). I urge to answer all of them -- and, with different answers to each. I don't know how long this would take, but the less thought I put into each one, the more complaints (that urge my response) I'll get. And whatever, I'd get multiple complaints to each response.
- If you wish, I'll respond to all 25, one at a time, and see how many different complaints I get...

- Whatever, you guys keep saying how you have already refuted all my "evidence" -- when, for the most part, I just haven't had time to answer most of your "refutations."
- I accept that some of my claims have (at least, apparently) been refuted -- but that's only a small minority. You have, in fact, "rebutted" (i.e., "To rebut is to argue against something." http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rebut) most of my claims, but for most of your rebuttals, I have my own rebuttals -- in other words, most of my claims have not been refuted, and I do have more to say about them...

 

[Dinwar]

- I count 25 different questions and objections to my last response (within the first 4 hrs and 30 mins).

What this tells me is that you are not reading for comprehension, and are looking for excuses to not address the issues.

If you actually read the responses in an attempt to understand them, you'd see they are all variations on the same theme.

If you were actually concerned with the issues, you would PICK ONE and address it. That would be orders of magnitude more honest and more respectful than what you are doing at present, and we all would appreciate the change.

- Whatever, you guys keep saying how you have already refuted all my "evidence" -- when, for the most part, I just haven't had time to answer most of your "refutations."

It's been years, Jabba. And you haven't had any NEW evidence in the last year. This is no excuse.

- I accept that some of my claims have (at least, apparently) been refuted -- but that's only a small minority.

Your understanding of these issues is demonstrably non-existent, so your acceptance or rejection of our refutations is irrelevant. For example, you demonstrably know nothing about radiocarbon dating (your "criticisms" of it are not relevant to the dating method), and therefore you are unable to properly evaluate whether we've refuted your positiono or not. This is not a personal attack; it's ADVICE. Not that i have any confidence that you will listen to it.

I have my own rebuttals -- in other words, most of my claims have not been refuted, and I do have more to say about them...

You should present them, then, rather than doing yet another itteration of "You guys are so mean and dogpilling on me!!!!"

If someone were bored and nerdy enough, it might be interesting to run a Monte Carlo analysis (I think? It's been a while....) to see if there is any actual periodicity in Jabba's posts. He cycles through the same 4 or 5 themes on a fairly regular basis; I wonder if there's an actual cycle, or if it's just random.

 

[Mojo]

- I count 25 different questions and objections to my last response (within the first 4 hrs and 30 mins). I urge to answer all of them -- and, with different answers to each. I don't know how long this would take, but the less thought I put into each one, the more complaints (that urge my response) I'll get. And whatever, I'd get multiple complaints to each response.
- If you wish, I'll respond to all 25, one at a time, and see how many different complaints I get...

- Whatever, you guys keep saying how you have already refuted all my "evidence" -- when, for the most part, I just haven't had time to answer most of your "refutations."
- I accept that some of my claims have (at least, apparently) been refuted -- but that's only a small minority. You have, in fact, "rebutted" (i.e., "To rebut is to argue against something." http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rebut) most of my claims, but for most of your rebuttals, I have my own rebuttals -- in other words, most of my claims have not been refuted, and I do have more to say about them...

And yet again we have, not a response to any of the questions, but a response about responding to them.

Stop doing this, Jabba!

Post your evidence (you claim to have some, remember?) that the shroud is 2000 years old. Don't ask what people would accept as evidence. Don't complain that there are too many people opposing you. Don't post your desired conclusion as if it is evidence. Don't post evidence that you think makes the shroud authentic but has no actual bearing on its age.

Post your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Mojo]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/Refuted?

Just post whatever evidence you have that the shroud is 2000 years old, and that you believe hasn't already been refuted.

 

[John Jones]

- I count 25 different questions and objections to my last response (within the first 4 hrs and 30 mins).

I agree with Dinwar. Just provide evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old and stop stalling.

 

[Stee]

If the shroud is authentic, then the carbon dating must be wrong.
The carbon dating is wrong.
Thus, the shroud is authentic.

Yes! This is basically his evidence, argument and conclusion

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I count 25 different questions and objections to my last response (within the first 4 hrs and 30 mins). I urge to answer all of them -- and, with different answers to each. I don't know how long this would take, but the less thought I put into each one, the more complaints (that urge my response) I'll get. And whatever, I'd get multiple complaints to each response.
- If you wish, I'll respond to all 25, one at a time, and see how many different complaints I get...

- Whatever, you guys keep saying how you have already refuted all my "evidence" -- when, for the most part, I just haven't had time to answer most of your "refutations."
- I accept that some of my claims have (at least, apparently) been refuted -- but that's only a small minority. You have, in fact, "rebutted" (i.e., "To rebut is to argue against something." http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rebut) most of my claims, but for most of your rebuttals, I have my own rebuttals -- in other words, most of my claims have not been refuted, and I do have more to say about them...

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

I have a suggestion: drop the evasiveness; stop the tap dancing; leave the whining at the door.

Take a deep breath, and post any and all of the objective, empirical, practical, testable, non-anecdotal evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

I mean, Obergefell got correctly decided today--maybe you can make it two out of two.

 

[Giordano]

- I count 25 different questions and objections to my last response (within the first 4 hrs and 30 mins). I urge to answer all of them -- and, with different answers to each. I don't know how long this would take, but the less thought I put into each one, the more complaints (that urge my response) I'll get. And whatever, I'd get multiple complaints to each response.
- If you wish, I'll respond to all 25, one at a time, and see how many different complaints I get...

- Whatever, you guys keep saying how you have already refuted all my "evidence" -- when, for the most part, I just haven't had time to answer most of your "refutations."
- I accept that some of my claims have (at least, apparently) been refuted -- but that's only a small minority. You have, in fact, "rebutted" (i.e., "To rebut is to argue against something." http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rebut) most of my claims, but for most of your rebuttals, I have my own rebuttals -- in other words, most of my claims have not been refuted, and I do have more to say about them...

Oh come on- 25 different questions? They are essentially all one question- unless you trully feel the need to respond to the time travel question. Provide your evidence, often alluded to in our own posts, that the Shroud is 2000 years old.

If you can't see that these 25 are fundamentally one question repeated multiple times (you might think about why people feel the need to repeat the same question to you multiple times), then you are completely out of your depth in defending the Shroud because you can't follow or understand the discussion. If you are simply continuing an attempt to evade a question that is indeed obvious to you, then you are admitting defeat.

Time for me to take another sabbatical from this thread. As always, good health and good luck in your life.

 

[pgwenthold]

Oh come on- 25 different questions? They are essentially all one question- .

He listed my posts as 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. That is 6 items. However, only one of them is a question. It's #7 (for pete's sake, 10 isn't even addressed to him!).

That question is, " Why don't YOU give us some examples of what YOU consider acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old? YOU are the one who claims that there is such, so let's hear it."

Which is the same question that everyone else is asking.

That was the only question I asked of him.

 

[Belz...]

- I count 25 different questions

You've very bad at math, then, because there's only one question: WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ?

 

[jimbob]

You've very bad at math, then, because there's only one question: WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ?

Not only is he bad at maths (sorry couldn't resist). But he's pretty bad at English (as used anywhere) as at least two of these are not questions:

He listed my posts as 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. That is 6 items. However, only one of them is a question. It's #7 (for pete's sake, 10 isn't even addressed to him!).

That question is, " Why don't YOU give us some examples of what YOU consider acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old? YOU are the one who claims that there is such, so let's hear it."

Which is the same question that everyone else is asking.

That was the only question I asked of him.

Mine wasn't even a question either. (#20)

One can postulate various magic effects that might alter the Carbon-14 date (the often mentioned Noodly Appendage plays around with isotope ratios, I believe) but an image that can't be of a person means that even if it was 2000 years old it wasn't an image of a person.
ETA:
No more than the image on the right could be of a person.

Thanks, Darat

My point was that even if you magicked away the age you are still stuck with the fact that the shroud isn't person-shaped. That evidence should be simpler to understand, because isotope ratios are slightly difficult.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I count 25 different questions and objections to my last response (within the first 4 hrs and 30 mins). I urge to answer all of them -- and, with different answers to each. I don't know how long this would take, but the less thought I put into each one, the more complaints (that urge my response) I'll get. And whatever, I'd get multiple complaints to each response.
- If you wish, I'll respond to all 25, one at a time, and see how many different complaints I get...

- Whatever, you guys keep saying how you have already refuted all my "evidence" -- when, for the most part, I just haven't had time to answer most of your "refutations."
- I accept that some of my claims have (at least, apparently) been refuted -- but that's only a small minority. You have, in fact, "rebutted" (i.e., "To rebut is to argue against something." http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rebut) most of my claims, but for most of your rebuttals, I have my own rebuttals -- in other words, most of my claims have not been refuted, and I do have more to say about them...

Jabba, really. Another post telling us why you can't post?

Please present any evidence you have that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Monza]

He listed my posts as 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. That is 6 items. However, only one of them is a question. It's #7 (for pete's sake, 10 isn't even addressed to him!).

That question is, " Why don't YOU give us some examples of what YOU consider acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old? YOU are the one who claims that there is such, so let's hear it."

Which is the same question that everyone else is asking.

That was the only question I asked of him.

He listed my post, but there is not a single question in there. In fact, the entirety of my post was to answer a direct question posed by Jabba himself. So he asks a question, someone responds, and then he complains that he received a reply.