abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
no it is 6 million years old. prove me wrong. Urge to faceplant on my KB rising.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage.
When there is nothing in one pan of a balance, removing a crumb form the other pan does not "change the tilt".
There are no scales.
This is not a binary yes/no, guilt/innocence, 700ya/2000ya question. Your scales metaphor is fatally flawed and some of your misunderstandings about the nature of evidence is stemming from trying to force a non-binary subject into a two-option, binary framework.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
'Jabba - consider it this way.
Imagine that you are the lead prosecutor in the case of In re: Shroud of Turin. You are giving your closing argument. You stand up and say:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution has proven that the Shroud is authentic to Jesus Christ. First, we have shown that carbon dating of 780 years may not be right. Another relic has been shown to be at least 1300 years old. The material on the Shroud is consistent with that of blood. The wounds and posing is consistent with that of biblical knowledge of Jesus' death. Thus, please find that the Shroud is the read burial cloth of Jesus."
Then the Defense counsel gets up. He's a real idiot. He's fat and has a combover and his ties always have stains on them. He says:
"Ladies and gentleman, all that you need to find the shroud inauthentic is a reasonable doubt as to its provenance. You need a doubt for which you could state a reason. Now three different labs have confirmed using scientific methods that the shroud is 780 years old. All three of those labs agreed with each other. Maybe they made some mistakes. But the worst mistake would only call the 780 year age into question. There is no evidence that the date was off by exactly 1220 years. It could have been off by 2, 20, 200 or 20000 years. If it raises any doubt in your mind that the shroud is not 2000 years old, you must find for the defense.
"The prosecution says the matter on the shroud is consistent with blood. We've shown that it is consistent with paint. We've shown that it contains exactly the type of chemical residue one would expect from earthen paints. Maybe it is blood - but if there is any doubt in your mind that it could be paint, you must vote for the defense.
"The prosecutor goes on at length about the biblical accuracy of the image. Well, guess what: the bible didn't exist during the time of Jesus. Those written accounts came decades, even a century later. And who had access to those accounts? Every European from that point on. For most Europeans, the bible was one of the only texts they knew, reading it or hearing it read to them at least weekly for their entire lives. If you think that someone in all those hundreds of years could have studied the bible and produced this relic from its description, you must side with the defense.
"Let us not forget that this shroud was found in Turin, Italy. Jesus died in Jerusalem. Now, lots of things travel from Jerusalem to Italy. But if this causes you to think that the shroud may have originated in Italy, that is reasonable doubt.
"And please, ladies and gentlemen, remember our esteemed experts in medieval European history. They testified to a well-documented history of counterfeiting relics. In fact it still goes on today. Why? Because there's money in it. People will pay not to own relics but for just for the privilege of seeing them. And some churches made a very nice income from their fake relics. If you wonder if that's what could reasonably have happened here, you must side with the defense.
"Last, we must ask where our prosecutor's positive evidence is? Where are his contemporary witnesses to the wrapping of this body and recovery of the shroud? Where are his Roman witnesses to the trial and death of Jesus? Where are the records of the Sanhedrin that they considered this man? Where are the scientific tests that say this is cloth is 2,000 years old? Where are the tests that say this matter is definitely blood, that it definitely has human DNA, and that DNA is definitely that of a Jewish man? The prosecution has offered none of this. If these thoughts trouble you at all, then you must find the shroud inauthentic.
"Thank you."
How do you think the jury should vote?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage.
There is no "scale of justice" involved. There is reality, and evidence.
The 14C dating, done by three independent labs, is evidence, strong evidence, if you will, that the CIQ is, in fact, on the close order of 780 years old.
What evidence do you offer, that the CIQ is, instead, ~2000 years old?
To be fair, for him it is. His options are that it's either 2ka, or it's not. If it's not, it is not the burial shroud of Christ pretty much regardless of the date (I suppose an older cloth may have been used, but I doubt it). Any younger date certainly refutes Jabba's position.
That said, invalidating the C14 dating does nothing to change the scales. Quite obviously, if ANY data establishes a date younger than 2ka, the notion that the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ is 100% completely invalidated. All it takes is one single piece of evidence. To establish the shroud as the burial cloth of Christ, you need to establish ALL the links in the logical chain.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Indeed, but he's trying to base an argument on the two options being that the carbon dating is correct or the shroud is 2000 years old.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
And that is a false dichotomy.
One minor change
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
OK, you two:
So where is this one-on-one Truly Effective Debate(TM), or whatever Jabba calls it?
Mr Farey agreed to it (for reasons that escape me), and Mr Savage has already utterly failed at it on this very forum.
To paraphrase Mr Savage in his 'from the hood' persona - you two get it on. This ought to be good.
Just start at the beginning: What evidence shows that the CIQ is ~2,000 years old? None of that blood/paint distraction matters if there is no evidence that the shroud is ~2000 years old - and no one has presented any.
So where is this one-on-one Truly Effective Debate(TM), or whatever Jabba calls it?
Mr Farey agreed to it (for reasons that escape me), and Mr Savage has already utterly failed at it on this very forum.
To paraphrase Mr Savage in his 'from the hood' persona - you two get it on. This ought to be good.
Just start at the beginning: What evidence shows that the CIQ is ~2,000 years old? None of that blood/paint distraction matters if there is no evidence that the shroud is ~2000 years old - and no one has presented any.
Last edited:
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
There is definitely a courtroom angle to the "effective" debate going on here. It seems we have a defence lawyer who sees it their task to have a win for their client through whatever means possible. They have no interest in arriving at the truth so will happily cherry pick and play down or ignore any inconvenient evidence. This "effective debate" is in no way honest enquiry, which is largely what skepticism is all about.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Technically, the opponents of authenticity would be the defense. The people attempting to prove a positive proposition (to some level of evidence) would be the prosecution.
Jabba is required to build a sturdy house, each brick and plank of wood solid and without defect. Any attack on any part of the foundation, the load-bearing columns, or the architectural soundness of the house is sufficient to weaken it and cause the whole thing to collapse.
The fact that Jabba thinks he's the defense is his basic problem. Throwing around wild possibilities is the job of the one attempting to prevent a proposition from being proven. It helps the proponent in no way at all.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Some of the tactics Jabba has resorted to (notably the unsupported accusations of fraud and incompetence levelled at the expert witnesses) in order to ensure that this particular guilty forger walked away scot free would have landed him in jail himself if he had tried them in most courtrooms.
Rincewind
Philosopher
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
You're supposed to be providing evidence that the Shroud of Turin is 2,000 years old, not bollocks about the Sudarium of Oviedo.
Agreed--I was just showing what I believe his thought process to be, and where the error lies.
As I pointed out before, the courtroom is an invalid way to analyze the quesiton. This is archaeology, and therefore subject to the SOPs of that field of study--and unfortunately for Jabba, science--particularly historical sciences--are not ammenable to courtroom debates.Sideroxylon said:
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Cool story, bro.
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Just so I can get an idea of where your approach lies, Jabba, do you personally consider the page you've just linked to is your best evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
I'm sorry, but that polarized image overlay stuff by the Whangers doesn't strike me as convincing.
I can't find out much about the technique that's not behind a paywall for one thing. For another thing, the technique seems to have only been used by the Whangers and only on the shroud and sudarium. Where is the stringent peer review of this technique?
The only provenance we have for the Sudarium dates it to the 7th century, meaning it's not old enough to be authentic either.
Just a few pages back, you were endorsing the 7th century 14C date of the Sudarium while claiming that it vouchsafes the shroud. It does not.
Whanger is a psychiatrist, anyway. Why should we consider him an expert in archaeology/physics/optics?
Last edited:
- Status