Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[Jabba]

Foundational Stuff

You know what, I'll accept this under one condition: show me the math. Show me that the overall probability of ~Dog goes down when Quadruped is applied. Don't just claim it to be true, demonstrate it...

elbe,
- Thanks very much for your request.
- Here's how it works.
- As just a WAG, say the number of dogs in the world is a billion or so.
- How many other kinds of things are there in the world (not to mention the universe), and how many of each kind of thing are there? For instance, how many hydrogen atoms are there in just this world?
- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.
- Hopefully, that communicates.

 

[Slowvehicle]

elbe,
- Thanks very much for your request.
- Here's how it works.
- As just a WAG, say the number of dogs in the world is a billion or so.
- How many other kinds of things are there in the world (not to mention the universe), and how many of each kind of thing are there? For instance, how many hydrogen atoms are there in just this world?
- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.
- Hopefully, that communicates.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You continue to gloss over the fact (the fact, mind you) that the "likelihood"/"probability"/"chance" of [DOG] is completely unaffected (not just "not changed very much"--completely unaffected) over and against the uncountable myriads of [QUADRUPED/~DOG].

Remember, no one has claimed that the CIQ is a patch of grassy moss in the lee shore of Iceland.

I remain as ever, yours, & ct.

 

[Stuart]

elbe,
- Thanks very much for your request.
- Here's how it works.
- As just a WAG, say the number of dogs in the world is a billion or so.
- How many other kinds of things are there in the world (not to mention the universe), and how many of each kind of thing are there? For instance, how many hydrogen atoms are there in just this world?
- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.
- Hopefully, that communicates.

Elbe asked for the maths, where is it?
Are you ever going to stop poor analogies and talk about the age of a 700 year old cloth instead?

 

[Belz...]

elbe,
- Thanks very much for your request.
- Here's how it works.
- As just a WAG, say the number of dogs in the world is a billion or so.
- How many other kinds of things are there in the world (not to mention the universe), and how many of each kind of thing are there? For instance, how many hydrogen atoms are there in just this world?
- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.
- Hopefully, that communicates.

#shroudplease.

 

[JayUtah]

How many other kinds of things are there in the world...

Irrelevant. The problem starts with things that are consistent with evidence, not all things. Among the things that are consistent with the evidence, you claim that evidence will preferentially support one of them. That is a begged question. It is not ameliorated by retrospectively expanding the starting conditions of your problem to include "all things," then saying the differentiating evidence supports one item in the differentiated class. That is a tautology.

This has been explained to you exhaustively.

Hopefully, that communicates.

The rejection of your claim is not based on your inability to communicate it or your critics' inability to understand it. The rejection of your claim is based on its logical incorrectness.

Try harder.

 

[Mojo]

elbe,
- Thanks very much for your request.
- Here's how it works.
- As just a WAG, say the number of dogs in the world is a billion or so.
- How many other kinds of things are there in the world (not to mention the universe), and how many of each kind of thing are there? For instance, how many hydrogen atoms are there in just this world?
- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.
- Hopefully, that communicates.

Jabba,
- Do you accept that there is circumstantial evidence that the image on the shroud is a dog?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Jabbalogic

Jabba,
- Do you accept that there is circumstantial evidence that the image on the shroud is a dog?

-Two eyes supports dog over non-dog.

-Do you accept that the image is circumstantial evidence of a dog?

-If it bleeds, we can kill it.I'll be back.



[Edit: There is direct evidence of Mojo Ninjutsu, or Mojutsu.]

 

[Kid Eager]

-Two eyes supports dog over non-dog.

-Do you accept that the image is circumstantial evidence of a dog?

-If it bleeds, we can kill it.I'll be back.

#dogshroudFTW

 

[carlitos]

elbe,

- Thanks very much for your request.

- Here's how it works.

- As just a WAG, say the number of dogs in the world is a billion or so.

- How many other kinds of things are there in the world (not to mention the universe), and how many of each kind of thing are there? For instance, how many hydrogen atoms are there in just this world?

- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.

- Hopefully, that communicates.

A monumentally stupid post.

 

[JayUtah]

A monumentally stupid post thread.

FTFY

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post

15. And four legs supports dog over non-dog.

Since the number of 4 legged animals that are not dogs massively exceeds the number of dogs. (Just add together the number of cattle, Pigs, sheep, cats, horses, deer etc., etc.) We can say that categorically four legs supports non dog over dog.

According to this article there are c. 525 million domestic dogs in the world. See https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201209/how-many-dogs-are-there-in-the-world.

According to this article their are 964.6 million cattle in the world. See http://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-ranking-countries-0-106905

According to this source in 2013 there was c. 977.27 million pigs in the world. See http://www.statista.com/statistics/263963/number-of-pigs-worldwide-since-1990/

According to this piece there are 1,078,948,201 sheep in the world. See http://www.knowsheep.eu/userfiles/1_ The Sheep World at a Click.pdf

According to this article there is c. 400 million domestic cats in the world. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3101986

The number of horses in the world is c. 58 million. http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2007/09/12/world-horse-population-58m/#axzz412bFqnVt

According to this there are c. 30 million deer in North America. I was unable to find figures for the world. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/rooney.html

And just for laughs what is the number of goats in the world? According to this there are c. 450 million goats in the world. http://www.goatworld.com/articles/goatslife/goatfacts.shtml

I won't add all the other animals that have 4 legs.

So guess what it appears that 4 legs make it vastly more probable that 4 legs means non dog than dog.

 

[abaddon]

elbe,
- Thanks very much for your request.
- Here's how it works.
- As just a WAG, say the number of dogs in the world is a billion or so.
- How many other kinds of things are there in the world (not to mention the universe), and how many of each kind of thing are there? For instance, how many hydrogen atoms are there in just this world?
- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.
- Hopefully, that communicates.

There are countless millions of things which have 4 legs and are not dogs. Right now, I sit at a spare desk in a customers location and without even trying I can spot dozens...without even trying.

 

[zooterkin]

- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.

You'd be fine if that was all we know, but it isn't. In this case, we also know it weighs 5 tons and is called Jumbo, yet you keep ignoring these details in favour of wishful thinking.

 

[pgwenthold]

- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously..

And once we know it weighs 12000 lbs, the probability of it being a dog drops to basically zero.

Why do you keep ignoring that "bit of info"?

 

[catsmate]

To summarise; so far Jabba (with occasional input from other shroudies) has completely failed to dent the mountain of evidence that the shroud is a medieval fake. In fact he's refused to even address most of it preferring to go on long, rambling digressions about dogs and his lack of understanding of mathematics and logic.

Historical.
Primarily the abject lack of any evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with some forty other such burial shrouds). In addition there's the complete lack of reference to any miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings and the the distinct changes in the shroud, e.g. fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological.
The image on the cloth does not, despite the squirming of shroudies, in any way resemble a true image of a human body. Likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms just aren't long enough).

Textile.
The weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from the first century Mid East, but matches medieval Europe well. There is no example of the complex herringbone twill weave that has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testimony.
The d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was known to be a fake not many year later.

Artistic.
The face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility.
Contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval techniques.

Analytic.
Detailed examination, by microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin. Further the cloth was subjected to an extraordinarily comprehensive radiocarbon dating that produced an age value in accordance with the other evidence.

Cultural.
The shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices (including the only extant sample of such cloths) nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts. Further Jewish practices and beliefs are against the preservation of an unclean cloth of this type.

Or, for those who prefer pictures;

 

[Belz...]

Or, for those who prefer pictures;
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_162724fbe8b99a1548.png[/qimg]

I like the guy on the left. He's like "Yeah. Deal with it!".

 

[jond]

To summarise; so far Jabba (with occasional input from other shroudies) has completely failed to dent the mountain of evidence that the shroud is a medieval fake. In fact he's refused to even address most of it preferring to go on long, rambling digressions about dogs and his lack of understanding of mathematics and logic.

Historical.
Primarily the abject lack of any evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with some forty other such burial shrouds). In addition there's the complete lack of reference to any miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings and the the distinct changes in the shroud, e.g. fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological.
The image on the cloth does not, despite the squirming of shroudies, in any way resemble a true image of a human body. Likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms just aren't long enough).

Textile.
The weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from the first century Mid East, but matches medieval Europe well. There is no example of the complex herringbone twill weave that has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testimony.
The d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was known to be a fake not many year later.

Artistic.
The face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility.
Contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval techniques.

Analytic.
Detailed examination, by microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin. Further the cloth was subjected to an extraordinarily comprehensive radiocarbon dating that produced an age value in accordance with the other evidence.

Cultural.
The shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices (including the only extant sample of such cloths) nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts. Further Jewish practices and beliefs are against the preservation of an unclean cloth of this type.

Or, for those who prefer pictures;
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_162724fbe8b99a1548.png[/qimg]

Oh, sure, if you want to get all factual and stuff. But you're ignoring the fact that it has four legs, which means it's more likely to be a dog than a PRS Custom 24 with a rosewood neck. Therefore, it's authentic! And, it's practice time. I'll be back...

 

[elbe]

elbe,
- Thanks very much for your request.
- Here's how it works.
- As just a WAG, say the number of dogs in the world is a billion or so.
- How many other kinds of things are there in the world (not to mention the universe), and how many of each kind of thing are there? For instance, how many hydrogen atoms are there in just this world?
- Whatever, the number of things in this world is unimaginably large, and the odds of our thing not being a dog -- before we know about the 4 legs -- is also unimaginably large. In contrast, once we know that our thing has 4 legs, the probability that it is not a dog shrinks enormously.
- Hopefully, that communicates.

I said I would accept it if you showed me the math. You appear to be trying to aggregate the probabilities of all things ~Dog into one category and then subtracting the obvious loss of all things ~Quadruped but you haven't demonstrated that the rising probability of all things ~Dog but Quadruped don't make up for the difference in relationship to Dog. Hence, show me the math. Right now, as far as I can tell, you only believe this to be true, you don't know it to be.

 

[catsmate]

I like the guy on the left. He's like "Yeah. Deal with it!".

Ah, that'd be Professor Edward Thomas "Teddy" Hall, CBE, FBA, FSA, D.Phil et cetera. I do belive you're right about his expression, it'd be just like him.

An interesting man, old Etonian, sailor in WW2, pilot (including hot-air-balloons, of which he was rather fond and built a number himself), marine archaeologist (he was involved in the finding of the wrecks of the Bouvet, Irresistible and Ocean), founder of ELSEC (Littlemore Scientific), builder of the Littlemore Clock (the most accurate pendulum clock ever constructed) and the first portable respirator, husband of the model Jennifer De La Harpe and more. Some of it including cannon...
One of those odd people; immensely charismatic and brilliant with an interest in almost every subject he encountered.

He was involved in disproving the Piltdown Man hoax, as well as the shroud hoax, and ran the Oxford Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art which applied proper science to the dating of historical objects.

ETA: the other two are doctors Michael Tite and Robert Hedges.

Oh, sure, if you want to get all factual and stuff. But you're ignoring the fact that it has four legs, which means it's more likely to be a dog than a PRS Custom 24 with a rosewood neck. Therefore, it's authentic! And, it's practice time. I'll be back...

I'm pretty sure the shroud image has two legs, and thus cannot be a dog.

 

[Belz...]

An interesting man, old Etonian, sailor in WW2, pilot (including hot-air-balloons, of which he was rather fond and built a number himself), marine archaeologist (he was involved in the finding of the wrecks of the Bouvet, Irresistible and Ocean), founder of ELSEC (Littlemore Scientific), builder of the Littlemore Clock (the most accurate pendulum clock ever constructed) and the first portable respirator, husband of the model Jennifer De La Harpe and more. Some of it including cannon...
One of those odd people; immensely charismatic and brilliant with an interest in almost every subject he encountered.

Damn. He's almost as omnidisciplinary as Buckaroo Banzai.