Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Rincewind]

Still waiting for the miracle of the appearance of evidence that the SIQ is 2K years old...

 

[Loss Leader]

For those interested, the thread in which Jabba's style of debate was trialled can be found here.

This actually isn't the thread on debate techniques. That one, which is somehow even more depressing, can be found here.

 

[Craig4]

LL,
- From Wikipedia:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
- So, ruling out the carbon dating would be weak evidence that the shroud is authentic, and older than you.

No, if the carbon dating results are wrong then we don't know what the date of the cloth is.

 

[Craig4]

LL,
- From Wikipedia:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
- So, ruling out the carbon dating would be weak evidence that the shroud is authentic, and older than you.

This I take it, is your admission that you have no evidence as to the age of the cloth.

 

[Mashuna]

This actually isn't the thread on debate techniques. That one, which is somehow even more depressing, can be found here.

Oh dear, that is a telling thread.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba doesn't have to try very hard to keep the "debate" "current"

 

[Peter i]

I've not visited this thread for some time, but I see that the Rag has only become a couple of weeks older since then.

Come on Jabba:

Do present some valid evidence that the Rag is 2000 years old.

 

[Jabba]

2000yrs?/Evidence?

[

...You are saying that the C dating being wrong makes it more likely that this shroud is from 2000 years ago.

Yes. It changes the tilt of the scale.

 

[abaddon]

[Yes. It changes the tilt of the scale.

Does it? OK, it's 6.000.000 years old. Prove me wrong.

 

[Sideroxylon]

[Yes. It changes the tilt of the scale.

What reasons have you been given already for this being wrong?
What are your counter arguements for those objections?

Please answer those in the interests of effective debate.

 

[Stuart]

Does it? OK, it's 6.000.000 years old. Prove me wrong.

I only heard of it in 1975 - so it can't be any older than 40 years old

 

[abaddon]

I only heard of it in 1975 - so it can't be any older than 40 years old

What the hey. I drew it yesterday. It's terribly easy to make any claim you wish if, a priori, actual evidence may be discarded willy nilly.

 

[Craig4]

[Yes. It changes the tilt of the scale.

No it just means you have no date other than the 14th century when it just appears.

However, you haven't even called into serious question the validity of the carbon dating. Absent that, this line of reasoning seems a dry hole.

 

[sackett]

I am weary, weary

Still waiting for the miracle of the appearance of evidence that the SIQ is 2K years old...

What's really a miracle is that anybody could ever believe in such primitive flapdoodle as the Shred of Torino.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, I suspect part of the problem is that you are visualising this as a binary question, where the shroud is either ~700 years old or it's ~2000 years old, hence your metaphor of scales, and your proposal that showing anything which you've put on the 'mediaeval' side to be wrong somehow increases the likelihood of authenticity. The problem is that this is not an appropriate metaphor - the age of the shroud is not an either/or question.

You could, if you like, separate out the strands of evidence like this:

Evidence for 1260-1390 date | Evidence with no bearing on date | Evidence of 1st century date | Evidence for it being the burial shroud of Christ
Carbon dating results|Paint or blood|?|?
Weave of cloth|Partly aligned with gospels|?|?
Gothic-style depiction of figure|Real 'live' dead body|?|?
Mediaeval trade in fake relics |Chisel shaped head|?|?

Obviously there's a lot more that could be filled in, which I'm not particularly interested in doing right now. But the point is that the paint/blood/dead body evidence doesn't affect the evidence for either 2000 years old, a mediaeval date, any other date, or it being the authentic shroud of Christ.

Please, please, I beg you. Show some evidence for the cloth being 2000 years old.

 

[Jabba]

2000yrs?/Evidence?

Jabba, I suspect part of the problem is that you are visualising this as a binary question, where the shroud is either ~700 years old or it's ~2000 years old, hence your metaphor of scales, and your proposal that showing anything which you've put on the 'mediaeval' side to be wrong somehow increases the likelihood of authenticity. The problem is that this is not an appropriate metaphor - the age of the shroud is not an either/or question.

You could, if you like, separate out the strands of evidence like this:

Evidence for 1260-1390 date | Evidence with no bearing on date | Evidence of 1st century date | Evidence for it being the burial shroud of Christ
Carbon dating results|Paint or blood|?|?
Weave of cloth|Partly aligned with gospels|?|?
Gothic-style depiction of figure|Real 'live' dead body|?|?
Mediaeval trade in fake relics |Chisel shaped head|?|?

Obviously there's a lot more that could be filled in, which I'm not particularly interested in doing right now. But the point is that the paint/blood/dead body evidence doesn't affect the evidence for either 2000 years old, a mediaeval date, any other date, or it being the authentic shroud of Christ.

Please, please, I beg you. Show some evidence for the cloth being 2000 years old.

Agatha,
- Does the carbon dating tip the scale of justice in favor of the shroud not being 2000 years old?

 

[Belz...]

[Yes. It changes the tilt of the scale.

No it DOES NOT. It means nothing. Stop lying. Please provide direct evidence for the 2000 year age of the shroud now.

 

[John Jones]

[Yes. It changes the tilt of the scale.

^A lie.

You said you have evidence of a 2000 year old shroud. Could we see it now, please?

 

[Monza]

Agatha,
- Does the carbon dating tip the scale of justice in favor of the shroud not being 2000 years old?

Yes, in the fact that the carbon dating is evidence toward 1290-1360 AD. This means it is evidence away from any other date. By removing the carbon dating evidence, it does not add evidence toward 2000 years old any more than it adds toward 200 years old. It is only less evidence toward a date of 1290-1360.

As pointed out earlier, this is not a binary question. The shroud is not either 2000 years old or 700 years old. The scale doesn't tip between one and the other. There is no scale. There could be evidence that the shroud image was made 3000 years ago, or evidence it was made 300 years ago.

This thread has presented evidence that the shroud is about 700 years old. If you believe it is 2000 years old, please present evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Craig4]

Agatha,
- Does the carbon dating tip the scale of justice in favor of the shroud not being 2000 years old?

Of course it tips the scale toward the cloth not being 2000 years old. How could it not? This was a well done test conducted by three different labs and they all came to a similar date range. There is no evidence of a patch. The samples were all cleaned prior to testing. The carbon dating clearly show a 12th century date. Your objections to the date are only reasonable because you need them to be, not because they are.

ETA: Since you want to base your beliefs about the shroud on evidence, you should just go ahead and change them now.