Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

Only one. It's an obvious fake.

Well yes, but to accept that reality would be to damage the basis for his faith, hence the desperate and pathetic attempts to somehow discredit the science that debunks the shroud.
Rather like randman and his anti-evolution nonsense, the General Relativity deniers or similar woosters.

Reality, evidence and science are the enemies of blind, unthinking faith.

 

[Ladewig]

I am not looking for redirection, I just want to understand what is happening.

A) you sincerely believe that you have thorough answers for every one of the 37 items on that list?

B) there is no item or combination of items on that list that make you even begin to consider the possibility of the inauthenticity of the Shroud?

C) if we are looking for a comprehensive list I am very confident we can add seven or eight points about the scale and dimensions. Would you like us to add those items to the list now or would you prefer to wait until the first 37 items are resolved?


D) did you leave the ability to reproduce the Shroud using ancient techniques off the list because you believe you have already proven that it is not reproduceable?
.
.

​

again this is not meant to derail your plan. These are just four yes/no questions which you can answer off the top of your head (no research required).

 

[Ladewig]

2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.

Yes. That happened. It is a fact that both sides can agree upon. The question remains as to why you think it is an important fact. Are you asserting that if seven samples had been used then the C14 dating would have been closer to 2000 years before present? If not, then there is no reason to discuss this fact.

 

[Ladewig]

6. Other scientific evidence supports a much earlier date than that concluded by the carbon dating.

If you are concerned about agreement then absolutely no progress can be made until we agree on the definition of scientific evidence.

 

[Marduk]

I like this thread, anyone who's reading it will know after reading Jabbas posts that only a real fundie would give the shroud any credence. He's doing a good job of sending everyone to Hell by demonstrating his desperate to believe against the evidence attitude

 

[Jabba]

I am not looking for redirection, I just want to understand what is happening.

A) you sincerely believe that you have thorough answers for every one of the 37 items on that list?...​

Ladewig,
- Yes. I do sincerely think ("believe" might be a little strong) that I have answers to all 37 items -- though, there may be a couple items that I don't really understand, and I suspect that you will be surprised at some of my answers otherwise.
--- Jabba​

 

[pgwenthold]

I gotta admit, after seeing the comment about how "the scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous" while still accepting Rogers's stuff I have decided that this can't be serious.

 

[tsig]

- I’ve added a section to my Shroud website (http://shrouddebates.com/) -- #9, Ongoing Debate.
- For the moment, it's totally rudimentary, but I think it's important if I can do it right.

- Otherwise, OK. I’ve been busy reading Gove and others – so, on to your issue #2.

- Sorry about the complexity to follow, but as you should know by now, I think that a big part of why debates never get anywhere is that they do tend to be quite complex, and it therefore behooves us to abandon any simplistic approach to debate if we wish to actually get anywhere with them...

- You guys (at least as I paraphrased you above somewhere) claim that you have A LOT OF REAL evidence that there was no patch -- whereas, I have NO REAL evidence that there was.
- Since that is really two claims in one, I will separate them and address one at a time. I’ll start with the second half – that I have no real evidence that we’re dealing here with a patch.
- Next, I need to rephrase that "half claim" in a couple of different ways.
- First, I should phrase it in positives rather than negatives (negatives lead to confusion), which means that I need to express the issue from my perspective rather than yours. In other words, "I claim that I DO have such evidence."
- Next, I need to break up this half claim into two pieces itself – one about “invisible reweaving,” or “patches”—the other about a CHEMICAL DIFFERENCE between the sample and the greater cloth. I need to identify this distinction because the second claim is not necessarily dependent on the first, and in his Thermochimica Acta article, all Rogers claimed was that the C14 and Raes samples were chemically different than the rest of the Shroud. He didn’t say anything about a “patch” or even invisible reweaving -- though it appears that such was what he was implying.

- Anyway, I think that I have significant evidence for both of my claims, and substantial evidence for at least one of those claims. Here’s a summary of my claimed evidence:

1. In regard to doubting Rogers' honesty (as was suggested in this thread), we have little or no reason to do that. Perhaps he was WRONG in his conclusions, but we have no significant reason to DOUBT HIS HONESTY regarding them. It's clearly POSSIBLE that he was being dishonest, but the available evidence supports his honesty much more than it undermines his honesty.
2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.
3. Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and Raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
4. In 2005, John L. Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings.
5. In 2008, a group from the Los Alamos National Laboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.
6. Other scientific evidence supports a much earlier date than that concluded by the carbon dating.
7. Historical evidence does also.
8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.

- Since we have already sort of agreed to disagree regarding #1, I’ll move on to #2 – The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.

2.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
2.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
2.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire Shroud).
2.1.4. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
2.1.5. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (Madame Flury-Lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
2.1.6. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures.
2.1.7. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
2.1.8. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the Shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”

- I'll stop there for now, and let you present your questions, reservations and objections so far.

--- Jabba

You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matthew 23:23,24)

 

[Jabba]

...B) there is no item or combination of items on that list that make you even begin to consider the possibility of the inauthenticity of the Shroud?...

Ladewig,
- There are items that make me consider the possibility of the inauthenticity of the Shroud.
--- Jabba

 

[tsig]

Ladewig,
- There are items that make me consider the possibility of the inauthenticity of the Shroud.
--- Jabba

If you need the shroud to be authentic then it seems to me your faith is hanging by a thread*.

*for non English speakers

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6746853_hanging-thread-meaning.html

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG....com/question/index?qid=20071228113302AAiwi26

 

[Jabba]

...C) if we are looking for a comprehensive list I am very confident we can add seven or eight points about the scale and dimensions. Would you like us to add those items to the list now or would you prefer to wait until the first 37 items are resolved?...

Ladewig,
- I guess that you can add them any time you want -- and if the other guys can agree upon what item to pursue next, I'll gladly comply.

You other guys,
- If you can accept Ladewig's lead, I will too. If no one tells me otherwise, within the next several posts, that's what I'll do.

--- Jabba
- I'm called to dinner.

 

[Alex Cured]

- I’ve added a section to my Shroud website (http://shrouddebates.com/) -- #9, Ongoing Debate.
- For the moment, it's totally rudimentary, but I think it's important if I can do it right.

- Otherwise, OK. I’ve been busy reading Gove and others – so, on to your issue #2.

- Sorry about the complexity to follow, but as you should know by now, I think that a big part of why debates never get anywhere is that they do tend to be quite complex, and it therefore behooves us to abandon any simplistic approach to debate if we wish to actually get anywhere with them...

- You guys (at least as I paraphrased you above somewhere) claim that you have A LOT OF REAL evidence that there was no patch -- whereas, I have NO REAL evidence that there was.
- Since that is really two claims in one, I will separate them and address one at a time. I’ll start with the second half – that I have no real evidence that we’re dealing here with a patch.
- Next, I need to rephrase that "half claim" in a couple of different ways.
- First, I should phrase it in positives rather than negatives (negatives lead to confusion), which means that I need to express the issue from my perspective rather than yours. In other words, "I claim that I DO have such evidence."
- Next, I need to break up this half claim into two pieces itself – one about “invisible reweaving,” or “patches”—the other about a CHEMICAL DIFFERENCE between the sample and the greater cloth. I need to identify this distinction because the second claim is not necessarily dependent on the first, and in his Thermochimica Acta article, all Rogers claimed was that the C14 and Raes samples were chemically different than the rest of the Shroud. He didn’t say anything about a “patch” or even invisible reweaving -- though it appears that such was what he was implying.

- Anyway, I think that I have significant evidence for both of my claims, and substantial evidence for at least one of those claims. Here’s a summary of my claimed evidence:

1. In regard to doubting Rogers' honesty (as was suggested in this thread), we have little or no reason to do that. Perhaps he was WRONG in his conclusions, but we have no significant reason to DOUBT HIS HONESTY regarding them. It's clearly POSSIBLE that he was being dishonest, but the available evidence supports his honesty much more than it undermines his honesty.
2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.
3. Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and Raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
4. In 2005, John L. Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings.
5. In 2008, a group from the Los Alamos National Laboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.
6. Other scientific evidence supports a much earlier date than that concluded by the carbon dating.
7. Historical evidence does also.
8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.

- Since we have already sort of agreed to disagree regarding #1, I’ll move on to #2 – The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.

2.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
2.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
2.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire Shroud).
2.1.4. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
2.1.5. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (Madame Flury-Lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
2.1.6. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures.
2.1.7. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
2.1.8. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the Shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”

- I'll stop there for now, and let you present your questions, reservations and objections so far.

--- Jabba

Quick summary:

Everything that is rigorous and scientific (and thus points to an obvious fraud) you disbelieve, while some tiny unfalsifiable things, possessing no scientific merit or demonstrable rigour, and are completely reliant on hearsay (but you think point to the shroud being genuine) you believe.

I hope it's clear to everyone, if wasn't before, that you're mind is closed and this "conversation" is an exercise in futility.

 

[Marduk]

Jabba. consider proverbs 26:11 next time you do any research

 

[dafydd]

Ladewig,
- Yes. I do sincerely think ("believe" might be a little strong) that I have answers to all 37 items -- though, there may be a couple items that I don't really understand, and I suspect that you will be surprised at some of my answers otherwise.
--- Jabba

Why do you need it to be real? Why do you ignore all the evidence that shows that it is a fake?

 

[Jabba]

...D) did you leave the ability to reproduce the Shroud using ancient techniques off the list because you believe you have already proven that it is not reproduceable?...

Ladewig,

- No. I assume that issue just wasn't expressed during the time period that I used in excerpting the different items.
- Though, I do still believe that no one has been able to fully reproduce the special characteristics of the Shroud -- and some of those involve really special characteristics. The following was taken from my http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43.

7.2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
7.2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.


--- Jabba

 

[carlitos]

My boogers have details that no one in 1357 could have seen, known of, or depicted.

 

[dafydd]

Ladewig,

- No. I assume that issue just wasn't expressed during the time period that I used in excerpting the different items.
- Though, I do still believe that no one has been able to fully reproduce the special characteristics of the Shroud -- and some of those involve really special characteristics. The following was taken from my http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43.

7.2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
7.2.2. We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict.


--- Jabba

Quotes from a woo website? What about some evidence?

 

[Ladewig]

If you are concerned about agreement then absolutely no progress can be made until we agree on the definition of scientific evidence.

Thank you for all your other answers. I do consider them fascinating.

I suspect that virtually everyone in this thread is prepared to call the definition of scientific evidence issue 0.0.0. Because without this definition, no other issue can be discussed in any meaningful manner.

Does anyone object to placing the definition of scientific evidence in the very first position?

 

[Ladewig]

Quick summary:

Everything that is rigorous and scientific (and thus points to an obvious fraud) you disbelieve, while some tiny unfalsifiable things, possessing no scientific merit or demonstrable rigour, and are completely reliant on hearsay (but you think point to the shroud being genuine) you believe.

I hope it's clear to everyone, if wasn't before, that you're mind is closed and this "conversation" is an exercise in futility.

If you allowed me 2000 words to come up with a summary of this thread, I could not produce anything more accurate and precise than your post. You have succinctly and efficiently described the previous 22 pages.

 

[Marduk]

- Though, I do still believe that no one has been able to fully reproduce the special characteristics of the Shroud

I think its despicable of you to be so dishonest after several people in this thread have already supplied you with this information
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/05/us-italy-shroud-idUSTRE5943HL20091005

Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.

as the only believer in this thread you are an ambassador for your faith and anyone reading your last post can see you lying. Jesus would be turning in his grave if he had one