• 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 / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reasonable doubt?

- From my post #1223:
- Overall, it’s a lot to read, but if you start at “Was the analysed sample representative of the whole cloth?” on page 22, and read through the Conclusion, it should go pretty fast. The last page or two is filled up with a bibliography, and each page in between is halfway devoted to references.

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuela..._of_the_Shroud
- I can't believe that you guys can say that I haven't presented reasonable doubt if you actually read the passage I cited...
- There must be SOMEbody out there (participating in this thread, other than myself) who would perceive some reasonable doubt if they actually read that passage...
--- Jabba
 
^
Jabba, please, please don't be so dishonest.
You know very well I read that.
We've gone over it on this thread.

As for those quotes of yours, they are all assertions, nothing more.
Do you really not see that?
 
Jabba said:
- From my post #1223:
- Overall, it’s a lot to read, but if you start at “Was the analysed sample representative of the whole cloth?” on page 22, and read through the Conclusion, it should go pretty fast. The last page or two is filled up with a bibliography, and each page in between is halfway devoted to references.

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuela..._of_the_Shroud
- I can't believe that you guys can say that I haven't presented reasonable doubt if you actually read the passage I cited...
- There must be SOMEbody out there (participating in this thread, other than myself) who would perceive some reasonable doubt if they actually read that passage...
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
Firstly that link is dead. Secondly all those evidence-free assertions have been dealt with.
 
No image below apparent blood?

Me: From, Lambert, J. B., Editor Archeological Chemistry – III 1984, American Chemical Society, P460
“It is interesting to point out that many of these wound images appear to have a border encircling the darkly colored area where body image is absent, a halo of sorts that can clearly be seen as such in the UV photography…”(Heller, J. H.; Adler, A. D. The Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 1981, 14, 81 – 103.

catsmate1 said:
Already dealt with...
Click to expand...
Catsmate,
- I've gotta admit that I don't remember so well these days, but can you point me to where this was already dealt with?
--- Jabba
 
Jabba,

Try reading when people respond to you. Pakeha has responded to your link, and I have responded to a portion. Read my post #1231 and then tell me why I should be swayed by your link.
 
Jabba said:
http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuela..._of_the_Shroud
[/I]- I can't believe that you guys can say that I haven't presented reasonable doubt if you actually read the passage I cited...
- There must be SOMEbody out there (participating in this thread, other than myself) who would perceive some reasonable doubt if they actually read that passage...
--- Jabba
Click to expand...


You have been asked 50 times or more for even one genuine scientific paper where genuine independent scientists have published results disputing the C14 dates. You have never been able to produce any such paper. Not even one.

When are you going to admit that?

Giving links and quotes from religious Shroud Believers is no better than anyone arguing that Alien Abduction is true by giving links and quotes from people who publish their belief in Aliens and UFO's.

- where is the independent scientific paper that overturns the C14? Please tell us where that is. That’s ALL you have to do … where is it? :boggled:
 
One common method that JREFers use to point out errors in reasoning is to repeat the claim or assertion with one or two words changed. For instance:



Jabba said:
- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...
Click to expand...

Jabba, you never responded when I said that the distortions of the image provide reasonable doubt as to the Shroud's validity, so I assume that you agree with my objections.​

Now do you see the error in the reasoning?

..............................

I have said many times that I am not here to sway Jabba's opinion; I am here to understand how he constructs his beliefs. His belief that we have a lot we can agree on fascinates me. We will not even agree to a common definition of reasonable doubt of the results of scientific testing.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- From my post #1223:
- Overall, it’s a lot to read, but if you start at “Was the analysed sample representative of the whole cloth?” on page 22, and read through the Conclusion, it should go pretty fast. The last page or two is filled up with a bibliography, and each page in between is halfway devoted to references.

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuela..._of_the_Shroud
- I can't believe that you guys can say that I haven't presented reasonable doubt if you actually read the passage I cited...
- There must be SOMEbody out there (participating in this thread, other than myself) who would perceive some reasonable doubt if they actually read that passage...
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

There is no reasonable doubt.
 
Jabba said:
- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...
- Any of you willing to admit that you actually perceive reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Okay, what exactly do you mean by this? Because in science, if there's no hard evidence it's INHERENTLY unreasonble--and it doesn't matter what "it" is. ANYTHING without evidence NECESSARILY is unreasonable.

Far as I can tell, by "reasonable doubt" you mean "someone could possibly doubt the claim"--a criteria which you do not, it must be noted, apply to your own arguments (the RCC has openly stated that there's more than a reasonable doubt that the shroud dates from the 1st century AD).

This is, once again, nothing more than an attempt to play at being a lawyer--poorly--when in fact the law has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Science doesn't work by reasonable doubt--it works by evidence.

- I can't believe that you guys can say that I haven't presented reasonable doubt if you actually read the passage I cited...
- There must be SOMEbody out there (participating in this thread, other than myself) who would perceive some reasonable doubt if they actually read that passage...
Click to expand...
Sure--and in all probability they aren't educated enough in the relevant fields for their opinion to be considered an informed opinion. At this point you're fishing for support, ANY support. This is more or less proof that you know your arguments have failed and are without value--otherwise, you'd be looking for people with informed opinions only.
 
I've been lurking on this thread and I cannot see anything in that paper which throws reasonable doubt on the radiocarbon dating results.
 
What a bunch of bovine fecal matter!

Jabba said:
- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...
- Any of you willing to admit that you actually perceive reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

No one here except you jabba has reasonable doubt about the c14 dating of the TS.
Are you really unable to understand that your arguments are rejected by the JREF community (at least as far as anyone has posted) and the assumption everybody who hasn't personally rejected your "reasonable doubt" claim accepts it, is a stupid tactic usually used in politics, but not in science.
Whatever credibility you might have had at the beginning of this thread has been completely destroyed. Nice done.
 
Jabba,
What, really, is the point?

You ignore what is said part of the time, decide somehow to draw conclusions the opposite of what has been stated the rest of the time, and clearly hold assertion as being more credible than actual evidence.

Yet even with these dishonest and transparent techniques, your case is in tatters. By your own evidence you are unable to place the piece of cloth with a provenance earlier than the date provided by the C14 dating. Stop, think.
 
Agatha said:
I've been lurking on this thread and I cannot see anything in that paper which throws reasonable doubt on the radiocarbon dating results.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it would be a lot easier if any lurkers who DID agree that there was reasonable doubt would chime in. I won't hold my breath waiting, however...
 
Rich (Jabba),

If you are really having significant memory problems and you have not seen a doctor about it, I strongly urge you to do so. It might be something very serious and more importantly, it might be reversible.

Secondly, since you are having these problems, I encourage you once again to call in reinforcements. You say you have many friends who are on your side. They have not shown up here to help you. They haven't even shown up on your own website to help you. Some friends! Please try and find someone to give you a helping hand.

Good luck,
Ward
 
Jabba said:
- It seems to me obvious that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, so I assume that all you guys who didn't say that there is no reasonable doubt, actually accept that there is...- Any of you willing to admit that you actually perceive reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Why would you assume such a thing?
 
wardenclyffe said:
Rich (Jabba),

If you are really having significant memory problems and you have not seen a doctor about it, I strongly urge you to do so. It might be something very serious and more importantly, it might be reversible. ...
Click to expand...

With respect and cariño, I must agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom