Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Garrette]

So it seems:
http://messiahornot.com/ShroudPainting.php

Jabba, you sly dog, you!

Oh, ho! So he is dishonest, without question.

Jabba knows all that has been said here. He simply refuses to discuss it, relying instead on the traditional fundie tactic of occasionally reposting the repeatedly debunked and acting agog when it is not accepted.

Bias is fine; lying is lying, even for Jeebus.

 

[IanS]

I don't know what Jabba thinks about the validity of radiocarbon dating or any other modern scientific techniques, but I suspect the main problem is that Jabba's religious beliefs mean he will always prefer to believe what is said on religious sites supporting religious issues such as the Shroud.

He thinks that what is presented on sites like that is just as good as “evidence”, as what any scientists can measure by techniques like C14.

In that sense it seems to boil down to something many of us have met with religious people on forums like this, where they end up arguing about the meaning of the word “evidence”, and as often as not end up claiming that anything that is ever said is actually “evidence”, and that unless science can prove something as an absolute certainty then they think all evidence is equally valid, and hence they conclude that their “evidence” is just as good as any opposing scientific evidence. Better in fact, since as Jabba says, there is much more "evidence" on his shroud sites ... ie everything that is said there in favour of the shroud, that's a huge pile of "evidence" confirming his beliefs.

 

[Garrette]

I don't know what Jabba thinks about the validity of radiocarbon dating or any other modern scientific techniques, but I suspect the main problem is that Jabba's religious beliefs mean he will always prefer to believe what is said on religious sites supporting religious issues such as the Shroud.

He thinks that what is presented on sites like that is just as good as “evidence”, as what any scientists can measure by techniques like C14.

In that sense it seems to boil down to something many of us have met with religious people on forums like this, where they end up arguing about the meaning of the word “evidence”, and as often as not end up claiming that anything that is ever said is actually “evidence”, and that unless science can prove something as an absolute certainty then they think all evidence is equally valid, and hence they conclude that their “evidence” is just as good as any opposing scientific evidence. Better in fact, since as Jabba says, there is much more "evidence" on his shroud sites ... ie everything that is said there in favour of the shroud, that's a huge pile of "evidence" confirming his beliefs.

I think this is a very large part of it, but there is another part, imo, particularly if Jabba is the age he has claimed (69+ if I recall).

I suspect that for most of his life Jabba was looked upon as the smart and knowledgeable one in areas such as the shroud. Since his audience was already inclined to believe as he does they didn't question much but were dutifully impressed with his apparent knowledge. With his sense of intellectual invincibility eventually fully developed and this thing called the internet on the horizon, Jabba decided he must use his prowess for the good of a wider audience. When met with intellectual resistance he chose, as so many do, to believe that his previous flock could not have been so mistaken for so long so the fault lay with the new flock who were simply too close minded to see the strength of his logic.

It's as much ego trip as anything else.

 

[catsmate]

So it seems:
http://messiahornot.com/ShroudPainting.php

Jabba, you sly dog, you!

Oh, ho! So he is dishonest, without question.

Jabba knows all that has been said here. He simply refuses to discuss it, relying instead on the traditional fundie tactic of occasionally reposting the repeatedly debunked and acting agog when it is not accepted.

Bias is fine; lying is lying, even for Jeebus.

Actually that one is new to me, I was referring to this thread over on atheist.net which Jabba started, also in 2010, and which specifically addressed the Marino and Benford claims and debunked them.

 

[Garrette]

Actually that one is new to me, I was referring to this thread over on atheist.net which Jabba started, also in 2010, and which specifically addressed the Marino and Benford claims and debunked them.

In that case:

Oh, ho! So he is dishonest, without question.

 

[pgwenthold]

I suspect that for most of his life Jabba was looked upon as the smart and knowledgeable one in areas such as the shroud.

Didn't he actually create a website dedicated to addressing the authenticity of the shroud?

For some reason, I have that in my head that he did. And it always struck me as odd, because as someone who claims to have a website of information on the shroud, he is very poorly informed, and has been completely schooled many times over by the hobbyists around here.

I know I always refer to Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion, which is regardless of the topic, assume someone knows more about it than you do, and this is but a mere example of that, but jeez, you would think that someone who has dedicated themselves to creating a webpage of information about the shroud should be so utterly ignorant of real basic information. It's one thing for someone like me to not know any details about the shroud and what is all known about it, but he has an info page.

It's like someone who creates a webpage on the JFK assassination, but the only information they know parrots the Oliver Stone movie.

 

[pakeha]

^
http://shrouddebates.com/
and
http://messiahornot.com/Shroud.php

Jabba's indulging himself in a rather slyly dishonest tactic of debating, rather than showing ignorance.

You can see him working the people in the same way here:
http://messiahornot.com/ShroudPainting.php

Jabba has all this information at his fingertips.
I daresay there are many ways to describe a person who manipulates others in this particular way.

 

[tsig]

In that case:

Oh, ho! So he is dishonest, without question.

Looks like he's beaten this dead horse at a lot of different rodeos.

 

[Akhenaten]

Bravo, Monsieur Jabba, bravo.

A question for the others in this thread. Do you think if Mr. Jabba understood what C14 dating is, he would be better prepared to discuss what is and what isn't scientific evidence in the field of radiometric dating?

Not the slightest chance in the world.

 

[Akhenaten]

At the bottom panel of the Pray Codex we can see Charles Darwin around the right arm of the woman nearest the angel. Miraculous!!!!!!

I used to be a creationist, but now I'm converted. This is all I need to know to accept that The Theory of Evolution is true!!!!

Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg

Hallelujah!

Put me down as a convert too!

 

[Akhenaten]

In that sense it seems to boil down to something many of us have met with religious people on forums like this, where they end up arguing about the meaning of the word “evidence”, and as often as not end up claiming that anything that is ever said is actually “evidence”, and that unless science can prove something as an absolute certainty then they think all evidence is equally valid, and hence they conclude that their “evidence” is just as good as any opposing scientific evidence. Better in fact, since as Jabba says, there is much more "evidence" on his shroud sites ... ie everything that is said there in favour of the shroud, that's a huge pile of "evidence" confirming his beliefs.

Welcome to DOCworld™.

 

[Ladewig]

Not the slightest chance in the world.

I didn't think so. Given that he appears devoted to the idea of not learning anything about science in general or radiometric dating in particular, my asking the question served no real purpose.

I suspect that not learning about science is one of Mr. Jabba's favorite pasttimes.

 

[The Norseman]

I'm getting bored of watching him being shroud-pwned. I'd much rather he start a new thread in the science sub-forum here on this one comment he made several years ago:

"...I claim that by using Bayesian Statistics I can reject the scientific hypothesis that we each have but one, finite life to live. This is a big part of why I tend to believe in a God (or at least, a reasonable facsimile thereof)."​

from http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3891

I'd like to read his take on Bayesian statistics.

 

[Mashuna]

I'm getting bored of watching him being shroud-pwned. I'd much rather he start a new thread in the science sub-forum here on this one comment he made several years ago:

"...I claim that by using Bayesian Statistics I can reject the scientific hypothesis that we each have but one, finite life to live. This is a big part of why I tend to believe in a God (or at least, a reasonable facsimile thereof)."​

from http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3891

I'd like to read his take on Bayesian statistics.

By 'his take', do you mean 'multiple links to error-filled articles by other people'?

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, it means an endless pedantic list of what multiple links to error-filled articles by other people he is going to post.

 

[Mashuna]

No, it means an endless pedantic list of what multiple links to error-filled articles by other people he is going to post.

Ah yes, the old 'lists about plans about links' trick.

 

[pakeha]

At the bottom panel of the Pray Codex we can see Charles Darwin around the right arm of the woman nearest the angel. Miraculous!!!!!!

I used to be a creationist, but now I'm converted. This is all I need to know to accept that The Theory of Evolution is true!!!!

Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg

That is very, very good.
Well spotted!

...

I suspect that for most of his life Jabba was looked upon as the smart and knowledgeable one in areas such as the shroud....It's as much ego trip as anything else.

I'm reading the 52 page debate jabba instigated on atheist.net.
I think you're quite wrong in your assessment.
Jabba is constantly being tripped up there because of his complete reliance on third-hand reports and out-dated write-ups.

On the other hands, the innuendos and excuses are almost word for word copies of what he's posted here.

Hallelujah!

Put me down as a convert too!

If the Pharaoh is convinced...

 

[Blue Mountain]

[snip]
I'm reading the 52 page debate jabba instigated on atheist.net.
I think you're quite wrong in your assessment.
Jabba is constantly being tripped up there because of his complete reliance on third-hand reports and out-dated write-ups.

On the other hands, the innuendos and excuses are almost word for word copies of what he's posted here.

Garrette was quite clear: Jabba, within his little sphere of Shroudies, probably had a reputation as person who really knew his stuff. Unfortunately when he presented his knowledge to the internet as a whole, it turned out he didn't know nearly as much as he thought he did. Hence the massive disconnect between what he believes to be true and what skeptics believe to be true.

For example, as far as skeptics are concerned the carbon-14 dating decides the issue: the Shroud is a medieval fake. Jabba was quite confident he knew the C-14 results were bad and had a paper that proved it. Except on our side we have a boatload of reasons to accept the C-14 results and reject the one paper that questions it. That's Jabba's knowledge (the Rogers paper) hitting reality (Rogers didn't know what the hell he was talking about.)

This entire thread is a wonderful example of the difference between religion and skepticism. Jabba believes, and massages the evidence to fit his belief. We look at the evidence first and draw our conclusions (our beliefs) from that.

 

[Jabba]

Blood

- Re one vs two foci -- I'm torn.
- For simplicity sake, I'd like to stick to one, and carbon dating would be the natural first choice.
- However, I disagree with you about the surety of the dating, believe that I have evidence in other areas that "outweighs" the dating, don't want to be restricted to just arguing against the dating and want to have my chance (in my own "sub-thread") to direct the conversation.
- I'm trying to follow your lead re the carbon dating, but think that the blood issue and its implications, outweigh the carbon dating results re the date of the Shroud. So, that's the area I wish to address, and will try to develop my own sub-thread accordingly.
--- Jabba

 

[dafydd]

- Re one vs two foci -- I'm torn.
- For simplicity sake, I'd like to stick to one, and carbon dating would be the natural first choice.
- However, I disagree with you about the surety of the dating, believe that I have evidence in other areas that "outweighs" the dating, don't want to be restricted to just arguing against the dating and want to have my chance (in my own "sub-thread") to direct the conversation.
- I'm trying to follow your lead re the carbon dating, but think that the blood issue and its implications, outweigh the carbon dating results re the date of the Shroud. So, that's the area I wish to address, and will try to develop my own sub-thread accordingly.
--- Jabba

The blood issue is less than important. What part of the sentence ''it is easy to smear blood on a cloth'' do you not understand? Can't you believe in your Jesus without the assistance of a silly piece of fabric which has been proved to be a fake?