Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akhenaten]

Dinwar,
- Maybe, if I show you that the other evidence is pretty strong that the Shroud is older than 1260, you'll begin to rethink your surety re the carbon dating...
--- Jabba

"Surety" is totally not the word you were looking for there.

 

[Dinwar]

Jabba, you're wrong about tone. Debates can be effective if both sides are throwing punches--all that's needed is for both sides to agree that the deciding factor is the facts.

As for respect, while this isn't my writing I do agree with it:

Every so often I get e-mails from people complaining I don't treat these topics or their believers with respect.
There is nothing in crank movements worthy of respect.
First of all, cranks don't treat the orthodox with respect. They can accuse science of willfully neglecting or falsifying evidence. They can accuse their own nation of bringing down skyscrapers and causing thousands of deaths, or deliberately breaching levees to flood New Orleans, but aim a little critical language at them, and they howl about being "disrespected." Aww, poo' baby.
They're right. I do disrespect them.
Then there's the sheer waste of it all. Cities are increasingly privatizing their public libraries, but there always seems to be money to support crackpot movements. We can't drum up enthusiasm for space travel but we can hold conventions as Roswell to commemorate UFO's. These people are parasites. They do nothing to advance real learning in our society and drain resources into crank movements that will never benefit anyone except charlatans.
Respect? Take it to someone who cares.

EARN my respect by showing that you understand the system you're questioning. I've told you how, repeatedly: Show me how much C14 would need to be added to the shroud for it to be as old as you want it to be, but still give a date in the 13th century. Until you do that simple calculation you have not demonstrated any knowledge of C14 dating and your opinions are uninformed, meaning that they can be dismissed without further consideration.

- Whatever, in order to get back to the evidence, I'll probably have to ignore everything that has occurred since my last post.

And now we're at the stage of childish taunts and insults. Are you capable of answering my request? If not, it's no shame on your part--but continuing to ignore the fact that you're ignorant about the subject you're discussing is demolishing your credibility.

- Maybe, if I show you that the other evidence is pretty strong that the Shroud is older than 1260, you'll begin to rethink your surety re the carbon dating...

I've shown you exactly what you need to do. Blood has nothing to do with it. If you understand C14 dating well enough to cast doubt on it, you should be able to do a symple geometric equation.

If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?

I've already shown that A doesn't require a dead body, mearly an artist that's not incompetant, and B is nothing more than Argument from Incredulity. So no, a dead body is NOT necessarily involved. One MAY HAVE BEEN, but you've yet to establish that fact.

But okay, if it'll avoid more emo "Woe is me, people are questioning me!" garbage, I'll agree ad arguendum that a dead body was involved somehow. What's next?

 

[pakeha]

Me:
- "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.
B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. ...
If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?...

In the 2010 debate over at http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3891
Jabba was answered on this subject.
Why bring it up again two years later?

I've approached this same question from the angle of woodcut techniques and have been ignored by Jabba.


Jabba, why not abandon the excuses?
After all, they convinced no one two years ago.
Why would they convince anyone now at JREF?
Why not address the central issue to the TS question- the carbon 14 dating?

Dinwar,
- Maybe, if I show you that the other evidence is pretty strong that the Shroud is older than 1260, you'll begin to rethink your surety re the carbon dating...
--- Jabba

Would this refer to something new?
Or the same material you presented two years ago at http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3891

 

[dafydd]

But okay, if it'll avoid more emo "Woe is me, people are questioning me!" garbage, I'll agree ad arguendum that a dead body was involved somehow. What's next?

An artist with brushes.

 

[Shalamar]

Me:
- "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.
B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.
Gao,
- Good question.
- Unfortunately, I need to ask you one first. If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

Wait... why do you need a dead body? I'm pretty sure I can bleed on a sheet of cloth without dying. Hell, when I donate Blood, that's a LOT of blood. More than enough to dab a cloth. Doesn't prove anything.

 

[Gao]

- Unfortunately, I need to ask you one first. If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

Why would a dead body be required for any of that? Heck, even aside from the fact that someone could use blood to paint, why couldn't they have cut a guy a bit, wrapped the clotharound him, then unwrapped him and patched the guy up?

Even if I were to accept that this meant that there had to be a corpse for some reason, how would this help with dating in the slightest?

 

[Lucian]

Belz,
- I'm sorry that it's annoying to you -- but, for the sake of effective organization, I like to have groups of paragraphs, and the program here (as in most forums) doesn't readily allow for that.
--- Jabba

Jabba,

I have taught college writing classes for roughly a thousand years, and I have to say--rather emphatically--that this is NOT an effective method of organization. Numbered, bulleted and hyphened lists have their place but should be used sparingly and for specific purposes (lists and outlines, for instance). In your post above, there is no list: just one short paragraph, plus salutation and signature. There is no reason to use the hyphen. Just double space between elements and paragraphs. Even when you do use numbered/bulleted/hyphened lists, you should double space between items. The white space makes it easier on your readers' eyes.

--Lucian

 

[dafydd]

Even if I were to accept that this meant that there had to be a corpse for some reason, how would this help with dating in the slightest?

That will remain a mystery.

 

[Dinwar]

Wait... why do you need a dead body? I'm pretty sure I can bleed on a sheet of cloth without dying. Hell, when I donate Blood, that's a LOT of blood. More than enough to dab a cloth. Doesn't prove anything.

A Thanksgiving I cut a hunk of my thumb off while slicing potatoes ("I don't need the hand guard for this slicer--I'll be fine!" ). My family has an annoying tendency to bleed for quite a while; I certainly got blood all over my shirt and pants (it dripped while I was seeing how bad it was). Bled through a few paper towels as well.

I've found that the trick isn't TO bleed on things. It's NOT TO bleed on them.

Also, blood looks weird after it's dried. I once got a good-sized drop of blood on a Pelican case for some geophysics equipment. I was able to observe it dry. In the end, it looks remarkably like mud.

Why not address the central issue to the TS question- the carbon 14 dating?

At this point, I can only conclude that he's incapable of doing is, and therefore considers such requests "unfriendly".

 

[Belz...]

That Japanese band are awful, by the way.

Skeptics say "I personally don't like this band.", rather than make objective statements.

 

[Garrette]

A Thanksgiving I cut a hunk of my thumb off while slicing potatoes ("I don't need the hand guard for this slicer--I'll be fine!" ). My family has an annoying tendency to bleed for quite a while; I certainly got blood all over my shirt and pants (it dripped while I was seeing how bad it was). Bled through a few paper towels as well.

I've found that the trick isn't TO bleed on things. It's NOT TO bleed on them.

Also, blood looks weird after it's dried. I once got a good-sized drop of blood on a Pelican case for some geophysics equipment. I was able to observe it dry. In the end, it looks remarkably like mud.

So.....

What you're saying is that you're 2000 years old and your shirt was quantumly entangled with an imprint using technology that will not be available until Kirk and the Enterprise arrive?

 

[Garrette]

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.

This is precisely what I meant. Thanks.

I would agree with Garrette, a poster I respect greatly,

Aw, shucks. Back atcha.

except that I view Jabba's posting activity as that of a hardened woo-monger, possibly with an eye to scamming the gullible.

As my position is simply informed speculation, I can see that your take on it is viable, too. I'm still leaning in my direction, but I won't start insulting you yet for having the temerity to disagree with me.

At least not until you've read my two year old blog where I lost the same argument...

 

[Shalamar]

A Thanksgiving I cut a hunk of my thumb off while slicing potatoes ("I don't need the hand guard for this slicer--I'll be fine!" ). My family has an annoying tendency to bleed for quite a while; I certainly got blood all over my shirt and pants (it dripped while I was seeing how bad it was). Bled through a few paper towels as well.

I've found that the trick isn't TO bleed on things. It's NOT TO bleed on them.

Also, blood looks weird after it's dried. I once got a good-sized drop of blood on a Pelican case for some geophysics equipment. I was able to observe it dry. In the end, it looks remarkably like mud.

Exactly. And when you want blood on your cloth, it needs to be fresh. The donor still needs to be alive. Dead bodies don't bleed. Why don't dead bodies bleed? Because the heart isn't pumping the blood through the veins. Not to mention that the blood in the body is probably clotting something fierce. So.. Blood on a shroud? Means nothing.

 

[Belz...]

Belz,
- I'm sorry that it's annoying to you -- but, for the sake of effective organization, I like to have groups of paragraphs, and the program here (as in most forums) doesn't readily allow for that.
--- Jabba

Really ? I've been here since '05 and I've never had trouble making paragraphs in the usual way.

See ? This line is separate from the previous one.

So is this one.

 

[Belz...]

Please explain how this is even remotely useful for dating.

Well, I suppose that pretending to know stuff about religious relics could get him laid in some states, but...

 

[Belz...]

- If you really wanted to have effective debate, you'd make it friendly.

Oh, please. Stop strumming that small violin. People have been extremely patient and courteous with you, something you couldn't expect from me, for instance. If you stopped playing the drama queen and got to actually show some evidence of your claim, it would go a long way to making this debate friendly.

 

[Belz...]

Me:
- "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.

Doesn't that kind of negate the idea that the shroud is genuine ? Why would you expect the image to avoid the blood stains ? Because they're icky ?

And why would you expect god to leave evidence of the resurrection ? It's clear in the bible that you should never expect any evidence from him. I wonder why...

 

[Belz...]

Even if I were to accept that this meant that there had to be a corpse for some reason, how would this help with dating in the slightest?

Well, I suppose that talking about dead bodies could get him laid in some countries, but...

 

[Belz...]

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.

"Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. " - Sherlock Holmes

 

[pakeha]

.... but I won't start insulting you yet for having the temerity to disagree with me.

At least not until you've read my two year old blog where I lost the same argument...

Mmmmm. Two year old blog. Like. Want.

50+ pages?