Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[ferd burfle]

Slowvehicle,
- I assume that you are not saying that since the carbon dating is true, this other stuff doesn't matter. Am I correct to assume that?

Slowvehicle,
- You seem to be presenting medieval as a given. Is that you're intention?

Enough with the trying to put words in people's mouths, Jabba. This is akin to the classic "have you stopped beating your wife". Why don't you make a simple, declarative statement of your factual evidence for authenticity. Instead of "effective debate", how about "honest debate"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- You seem to be presenting medieval as a given. Is that you're intention?

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Have you, in fact been reading the things I have posted, here and in the antecedents of this thread? Why is it that you continue to rely upon assumptions, rather than simply reading what I post?

To be perfectly clear:

No. The medieval provenance of the CIQ is not a "given". It is, rather, a demonstrated fact. The ¹⁴C dating (which others have allowed you to set aside, arguendo) demonstrated (by means of the most observed bit of ¹⁴C dating ever) that the linen of the CIQ was harvested no more than ~750 years ago.

No credible bit of counter-evidence has been presented to refute that date; not the dark hints of conspiracy; not the character assassinations; not the invention of ad hoc qualitative "analyses"; nor any of the other gyrations of the committed sidonists have prevailed against those dates.

I have asked you repeatedly to present evidence that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old. Your response has been to try (I emphasize try) to discredit the ¹⁴C dating. You have yet to present a single bit of actual, concrete practical, objective, testable empirical evidence of the age of the CIQ; you have, in fact, admitted that you have none.

The age of the manifestly medieval CIQ is a demonstrated fact, backed by evidence. Not (and notice this well) a "given".

Do notice also that this does not, in any way, even begin to address the laughable absurdities of the cartoon presented on the sized and gessoed surface of the CIQ...

Do feel free to present actual evidence otherwise...

I remain historico-temporally yours, &ct.

BTW: have you repaired the egregious errors in your grotesque "map"? You really ought not to continue to misrepresent my words, and the words of others, while pretending to present "both sides" of the "story". You really ought not.

 

[Craig4]

Slowvehicle,
- I assume that you are not saying that since the carbon dating is true, this other stuff doesn't matter. Am I correct to assume that?

Hey, um, here's a hot tip: evidence doesn't end with a question mark. Thought you should know.

 

[jsfisher]

A great many rule-12-ish posts have been culled and banished to AAH. Please stick the topic, not an arguer of the topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher

 

[JayUtah]

The ¹⁴C dating (which others have allowed you to set aside, arguendo)...

In light of this, let me clarify that I agree with you in all relevant substance. What I wanted to show was that reasoning "circumstantially," as a court of law would do and as Jabba desperately wants us to do on his behalf, still doesn't save his bacon. Consideration of the body of evidence as a circumstantial case still converges undeniably toward medieval forgery.

While, scientifically speaking, the ¹⁴C evidence is a slam-dunk, it doesn't need to be in order for the evidence still to spell out a consilient conclusion. Jabba wants us to relax our grasp on radiocarbon dating. Even relaxing it to the reasonable consideration of "circumstantial evidence" doesn't change the outcome.

No credible bit of counter-evidence has been presented to refute that date; not the dark hints of conspiracy; not the character assassinations; not the invention of ad hoc qualitative "analyses"; nor any of the other gyrations of the committed sidonists have prevailed against those dates.

This is really where it's at. As we can see from the battle plan, Jabba really has no horse in the stable other than the sorry sorrel of shifting the burden of proof and hacking away at a straw-man carbon isotope. Even before the radiocarbon dating there were several indicators of a medieval origin. While this thread has ostensibly focused on putatively neutral evidence such as blood and limestone, not all evidence that isn't radiocarbon dating is neutral.

In a court of law one can certainly try to impeach scientific evidence by means of conspiracy theories and character attacks. The former would constitute an affirmative defense and would incur the burden of proof, even in court. If your claim is that evidence presented by an adversary was tampered with or fabricated, you have that burden of proof even if your adversary retains the overall burden of proof. As such, unprovable conspiracy theories and accusations of cantankerousness are a very poor way to explain away contrary evidence.

In science and history, conspiracy theories and character attacks simply have no explanatory or convincing power whatsoever. They are the resort of the fringe claimants.

I have asked you repeatedly to present evidence that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old. Your response has been to try (I emphasize try) to discredit the ¹⁴C dating.

In four years he has not risen above the false dilemma. The only two possible dates are, in his mind, 700 years old or 2000 years old. This same false dilemma pervades every analogy he has drawn and every inferential model he has composed. "Authentic" and "not-authentic" are too simplistic to provide a framework for reason.

 

[The Sparrow]

Perhaps someone could shift perspective back by listing out what the direct evidence tells us about the ciq.

for example
1. It has been carbon dated to about 1300 AD.
2. the weave....
3. the fabric....
etc

 

[Mojo]

Perhaps someone could shift perspective back by listing out what the direct evidence tells us about the ciq.

for example
1. It has been carbon dated to about 1300 AD.
2. the weave....
3. the fabric....
etc

Somewhere in this thread, or its predecessors, are some handy tables of evidence posted by Agatha.

ETA: Found one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10772681#post10772681

There may be more recent examples.

 

[John Jones]

Perhaps someone could shift perspective back by listing out what the direct evidence tells us about the ciq.

for example
1. It has been carbon dated to about 1300 AD.
2. the weave....
3. the fabric....
etc

4. The documented history.

 

[phiwum]

phiwum: having identified the small part of Jabba's argument which is correct, it would be helpful if you could now explain why the rest is incorrect. I know others have done so but Jabba clearly either didn't read or didn't understand them, and from past experience I'm pretty sure he will take your defence of that one small part of his argument as justification for dismissing all objections and continuing to assume he is 100% correct. You now have his attention, so there's a chance he will at least read any further posts you make.

I would do so if there's small time investment required. Is there one or two posts you have in mind?

From what I've heard from others, he insists the effect on the Shroud could have occurred around the time of Jesus' death, despite the fact that the Shroud itself has been scientifically dated to about 1400AD. Obviously, the latter fact entails the former must be false.

 

[Jabba]

I would do so if there's small time investment required. Is there one or two posts you have in mind?

From what I've heard from others, he insists the effect on the Shroud could have occurred around the time of Jesus' death, despite the fact that the Shroud itself has been scientifically dated to about 1400AD. Obviously, the latter fact entails the former must be false.

phiwum,
- So far, you seem totally correct to me. Please check me out on the following post, and let me know if you see problems. I will listen.
- But then, seems like you've already agreed with my premises and conclusion...

- Thanks for your time.

- I'll try again, by changing my wording a little. Given my premises would you still disagree with my conclusion? With how many of my premises would you disagree?

1. An event can be consistent with both an hypothesis and its complement.
2. While being consistent with both, it can increase the probability of one, while decreasing the probability of the other.
3. It can do that even when the other is still more probable than the 'one.'
4. That's what happens when we find out that the unknown THING we have has 4 legs, and our hypotheses are DOG and ~DOG.
5. Even though the probability of ~DOG is still greater than the probability of DOG, the probability of DOG has been increased while the probability of non-dog, has been decreased.
6. The effect on the probabilities of an hypothesis and its complement is what determines which is supported and which is not.
6. Therefore, 4 legs is circumstantial evidence for DOG over non-dog --
7. Though, we need more circumstantial evidence for DOG in order to make the preponderance of evidence support DOG.

 

[JayUtah]

I will listen.

Hogwash. You were given itemized rebuttals to that argument, which you entirely ignored.

But then, seems like you've already agreed with my premises and conclusion...

No, he hasn't. He says you're not entirely wrong. Stop begging people to agree with you.

You hastily deleted the part where you say you simply disbelieve the scientific evidence. And you know you can't argue dogs here. Shroud, please. Present your evidence now, unless it's the same nonsense you've been peddling for years.

 

[phiwum]

I would do so if there's small time investment required. Is there one or two posts you have in mind?

From what I've heard from others, he insists the effect on the Shroud could have occurred around the time of Jesus' death, despite the fact that the Shroud itself has been scientifically dated to about 1400AD. Obviously, the latter fact entails the former must be false.

My off topic post was quite reasonably moved here. However, I'm not interested in this thread and will not be participating our making replies.

 

[JayUtah]

My off topic post was quite reasonably moved here. However, I'm not interested in this thread and will not be participating our making replies.

Quite defensible. Sadly it means this thread will take another spin around the hamster wheel. Jabba started the thread on circumstantial evidence hoping to divorce it from the controversy of the religious artifact and obtain a specific approval. He was hoping that people not supposedly tainted by shroud "denialism" would endorse his theory of evidence. Then he could smugly take that approval back to the shroud thread and rub it in his critics' faces, showing that their rejection of his (rather obviously illogical) approach was biased and improper.

Having no evidence, he wants to argue here solely by analogy. He wants to present a syllogism of validating form, however inapt to his shroud argument, and conclude that by virtue of it he has won the shroud debate.

 

[Belz...]

My off topic post was quite reasonably moved here. However, I'm not interested in this thread and will not be participating our making replies.

You're smarter than the rest of us, then.

 

[abaddon]

You're smarter than the rest of us, then.

Well he is the current anointed LCP.

 

[Mojo]

Quite defensible. Sadly it means this thread will take another spin around the hamster wheel. Jabba started the thread on circumstantial evidence hoping to divorce it from the controversy of the religious artifact and obtain a specific approval. He was hoping that people not supposedly tainted by shroud "denialism" would endorse his theory of evidence. Then he could smugly take that approval back to the shroud thread and rub it in his critics' faces, showing that their rejection of his (rather obviously illogical) approach was biased and improper.

Having no evidence, he wants to argue here solely by analogy. He wants to present a syllogism of validating form, however inapt to his shroud argument, and conclude that by virtue of it he has won the shroud debate.

It's an exercise in circular reasoning. In the other thread he is arguing that single pieces of "circumstantial evidence" (by which he means anything that is consistent with both of two opposing hypotheses), viewed in isolation, can be used as supportive of one hypothesis over the other.

The 'viewed in isolation' bit is important, because it allows him to consider all his bits of irrelevant information while ignoring the clear evidence that the cloth is medieval. Then he can point to his great steaming pile of irrelevance and say that it is all "circumstantial evidence" supportive of authenticity. He can then use the conclusion he has drawn from his cherry-picked "evidence" to reject the evidence he has had to ignore in order to reach it.

All neatly circular.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Slowvehicle, thanks for this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11147722#post11147722

People like you show that, even in the midst of this extraordinary train-wreck of a thread, it is still possible to glean some useful grains of knowledge from the chaff.
Given that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,
I remain, Sir, gratefully yours,
Cosmic Yak.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, thanks for this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11147722#post11147722

People like you show that, even in the midst of this extraordinary train-wreck of a thread, it is still possible to glean some useful grains of knowledge from the chaff.
Given that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,
I remain, Sir, gratefully yours,
Cosmic Yak.

Thank you for your kind words. That is high, high praise, and I shall endeavour to be worthy.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I wrote a song called “the sounds of evidence”. It’s just crickets.

 

[carlitos]

I did a Nickelback parody song in one of these threads, but I can't find it.