Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[tsig]

- I'm back!!!

- I'll try to stick to the carbon dating for now.

- Just to catch us up -- so far, I've suggested 4 papers that question the carbon dating results.
- http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf -- Rogers
- http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud -- Valencia
- http://shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf -- Brown
- http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf – Benford & Marino

- You guys have discounted all 4. You believe that none of these are really "scientific" or "independent." I, of course, believe that they are more scientific and independent than do you guys, though, just how scientific and independent they are, I can't really say.
- But then, as far as I can tell, the only scientific article you guys have supporting your case is the Nature article itself.

- For now, I'll just add a couple of videos, along with an article that goes with one of the videos.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOusGOFVdZ0&feature=youtu.be – Richard Dawkins
- http://holyshroud.tumblr.com/post/21855273186/the-night-of-the-shroud-premiered-in-spain-by-rai-at -- Night of the Shroud, article
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKXt-IZx-k -- Night of the Shroud, video


- As you know, I believe that, between the direct evidence and the indirect evidence, there is plenty of doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating. I'll keep looking for more indirect evidence that the dating has to be wrong. But, this might take awhile, as I need to find, or re-find, sources supporting intermediate claims supportive of the ultimate claim of interest here -- that the carbon dating is not valid.

--- Jabba

Jabba, C14 dating uses the basic properties of the universe so either the shroud is a fake, all the labs made the same mistake in the same way or there's something wrong with the basic properties of the universe.

My money's on fake.

 

[Dinwar]

- You guys have discounted all 4.

No. We have DISPROVEN all four. And have provided specific information that would disprove our statements. You have yet to provide it. You've yet to even provide the most fundamentally basic information, the very fact that your ENTIRE C14 argument rests on: What amount of C14 contamination is necessary in a 2,000 year old cloth to give a false reading of 600 to 700 years?

Provide that first. The math is easy--and if you can't understand that math, you can't understand C14 dating, and you'll have proven you're simply copying and pasting stuff you've swallowed merely because you want to believe it.

The reason this number is fundamental is because that is, in essence, what you are trying to prove: that that much contamination is present in the shroud. If you don't even know how much contamination you're looking for, how in blazes can you say ANYTHING else about C14 dating?! This is like looking for a murderer without knowing that a murder even occurred! Actually, it's worse--it's like looking for a criminal without knowing that the planet you're looking on has life, let alone crime. Without this number, you are flying completely 100% blind. None of the papers that you've posted and that I've read give that number, so we can discount all of them just from that fact alone.

Either give us the number we're looking for (however you want to present it; I'm not picky about units), or you've already lost.

And here's the thing: you don't need fancy references to get this number. This is a basic principles issue, and you should be able to find everything you need on Wiki. Certainly a quick Google will give you the math necessary. To make it simpler, I suggest assuming a one-time dose of contamination.

- But then, as far as I can tell, the only scientific article you guys have supporting your case is the Nature article itself.

The reason for that is that that one Nature article is sufficient to demolish the rest of the articles. Science isn't about gross tonnage of paper published, it's about quality of research.

However, this is a flat-out lie. We've provided NUMEROUS refutations of those papers, and every other statement you've made about the shroud's age. For example, I've provided references to C14 dating which show many of the statements in those articles you've cited to be wrong. If you're not even going to be honest, why bother debating? Just cut to the chase: Lie and say we all agree with you, and call it a victory. Because at this point, the difference between what you're doing what I just described is only a matter of degrees.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Jabba, please stop and respond to the previous posts before doing anything else.

These are points that must be addressed.

Absolutely no forward progress can be made until you demonstrate that you understand how scientific validity is measured.

Ladewig,
- Tell me which particular post, and which particular Q or C within that post, that you would like me to respond to first and I will give you the best answer I can come up with. If you continue to do that, I will continue to provide my best answers.
--- Jabba

 

[dafydd]

Ladewig,
- Tell me which particular post, and which particular Q or C within that post, that you would like me to respond to first and I will give you the best answer I can come up with. If you continue to do that, I will continue to provide my best answers.
--- Jabba

You have yet to provide any answers.

 

[Craig B]

Ladewig,
- Tell me which particular post, and which particular Q or C within that post, that you would like me to respond to first and I will give you the best answer I can come up with. If you continue to do that, I will continue to provide my best answers.
--- Jabba

Jabba, if you carry on like this, I will strangle myself in my own entrails. You have been told the question scores of times. Answer it first, the best you can.

 

[Marduk]

Ladewig,
- Tell me which particular post, and which particular Q or C within that post, that you would like me to respond to first and I will give you the best answer I can come up with. If you continue to do that, I will continue to provide my best answers.
--- Jabba

Jabba, they are asking you to provide a scientifically valid refutation to the C14 dating
either, post something written by people qualified to refute it
or admit that such a paper doesn't exist

if its the former, great, the discussion will continue
if its the latter, you might as well admit that there is no evidence that the shroud dates back to Jesus' lifetime

but based on the fact that people have been asking you to produce this evidence for the last 43 pages and you have been too evasive to respond, I like Jesus am not holding my breath

All in all, anyone undecided on this subject reading this thread will see that your constant evasion, inability to understand basic science and unwillingness to debate honestly doom the validity of the shroud to a laughable and invalid fundamentalist christian fantasy, not because of any of the evidence in either direction, but solely on your incompetance to answer a simple question.

can't you see what a charade you are performing, you're the Ken Ham of the shroud world ?

 

[pgwenthold]

I see they haven't included Jesus toast or that dogs ass where he appeared

I've been doing the internet thing for almost 20 years now, seen my share of freaky porn sites and whatever, and that perhaps the most disturbing thing I have ever come across.

I gotta hand it to you. After all this time, I have become pretty jaded, and think I've pretty much seen it all, but this is...um...unique.

 

[Garrette]

Ladewig,
- Tell me which particular post, and which particular Q or C within that post, that you would like me to respond to first and I will give you the best answer I can come up with. If you continue to do that, I will continue to provide my best answers.
--- Jabba

Once again, Dinwar's got it right.

To paraphrase an earlier post of mine:

You may not be a troll or a liar, but you are indistinguishable from one.

 

[pakeha]

pgwenthold wrote:

Marduk wrote:
I see they haven't included Jesus toast or that dogs ass where he appeared
I've been doing the internet thing for almost 20 years now, seen my share of freaky porn sites and whatever, and that perhaps the most disturbing thing I have ever come across.

I gotta hand it to you. After all this time, I have become pretty jaded, and think I've pretty much seen it all, but this is...um...unique.

Seconded.

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig,
- Tell me which particular post, and which particular Q or C within that post, that you would like me to respond to first and I will give you the best answer I can come up with. If you continue to do that, I will continue to provide my best answers.
--- Jabba

Thank you for asking, Mr. Jabba.

1674, 1675, or 1676. I think many of the posters here would be impressed with your simply picking any one of those posts and responding comprehensively. I was going to tell you to pick the easiest and focus solely on that; but I'll make it even easier for you. Pick any one of those three posts and describe why we, and any objective observer, would consider those points in that post crucial to the discussion.

 

[catsmate]

- I'm back!!!

- I'll try to stick to the carbon dating for now.

- Just to catch us up -- so far, I've suggested 4 papers that question the carbon dating results.
- http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf -- Rogers
- http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud -- Valencia
- http://shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf -- Brown
- http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf – Benford & Marino

- You guys have discounted all 4. You believe that none of these are really "scientific" or "independent." I, of course, believe that they are more scientific and independent than do you guys, though, just how scientific and independent they are, I can't really say.
- But then, as far as I can tell, the only scientific article you guys have supporting your case is the Nature article itself.

This is, as I'm quite sure you're aware, is utterly untrue. In fact it's a blatant lie.
We've shown, repeatedly die to your habit of posting the same nonsense time after time, that the "science" in these articles is rubbish. That the authors are long time shroudies, lacking in most cases any scientific credentials. That your claims of "peer review" for these articles are untrue. That one of these is written by a blatant liar.
Yet you continue to post the same debunked nonsense time after time.
Let me summarise:

- For now, I'll just add a couple of videos, along with an article that goes with one of the videos.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOusGOFVdZ0&feature=youtu.be – Richard Dawkins
- http://holyshroud.tumblr.com/post/21855273186/the-night-of-the-shroud-premiered-in-spain-by-rai-at -- Night of the Shroud, article
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKXt-IZx-k -- Night of the Shroud, video

What has the nonsense got to do with anything? Where's the science and the evidence you keep promising?

- As you know, I believe that, between the direct evidence and the indirect evidence, there is plenty of doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating. I'll keep looking for more indirect evidence that the dating has to be wrong. But, this might take awhile, as I need to find, or re-find, sources supporting intermediate claims supportive of the ultimate claim of interest here -- that the carbon dating is not valid.

No matter how many times you desperately claim this it remains a lie.
Your best "evidence" is a tissue to delusions and wishful thinking, flavoured by lies and dubious science.

 

[catsmate]

I began to take the bait to look at your links, Jabba, but two things stopped me:

1. You still haven't responded to specific comments about your earlier link. If you won't do that, then it is the same as admitting that you can't do that, and so you have no credibility.

2. I looked up the credentials of Benford and Marino (co-authors of your fourth paper). They want to discuss carbon dating yet neither of them has any relevant credentials. Benford is a nurse who promotes "energy healing" which is absolute hoakum. Marino is a monk whose only academic qualifications are in theology. Their complaints about the C14 data have no more standing than my inability to understand quantum physics.

Additionally, despite the claims of shroudies like Jabba, that paper was not peer-reviewed. Two of his other "papers" also do not appear to have any peer-reviewed publication history. That leaves Rogers' nonsense which has been dealt with in depth.

Hi, Jabba.

"- You guys have discounted all 4. You believe that none of these are really "scientific" or "independent." I, of course, believe that they are more scientific and independent than do you guys, though, just how scientific and independent they are, I can't really say.
- But then, as far as I can tell, the only scientific article you guys have supporting your case is the Nature article itself."


Jabba, it's not that we 'believe' those 4 sources are neither scientific nor independant.
It has been explained to you again and again why those sources are neither scientific nor independant.
Do you see the difference between those two sentences?

Also, if you can't explain "just how scientific and independent " your sources are, isn't it time to learn what the articles you cite are about?

Yep.

Jabba, C14 dating uses the basic properties of the universe so either the shroud is a fake, all the labs made the same mistake in the same way or there's something wrong with the basic properties of the universe.

My money's on fake.

If that's what it takes for the shroud to be real, that's what the shroudies will believe.

 

[catsmate]

Ladewig,
- Tell me which particular post, and which particular Q or C within that post, that you would like me to respond to first and I will give you the best answer I can come up with. If you continue to do that, I will continue to provide my best answers.
--- Jabba

Stop trying to dodge the difficult questions, it's pathetic.

Jabba, if you carry on like this, I will strangle myself in my own entrails. You have been told the question scores of times. Answer it first, the best you can.

He's trying to avoid answering the questions and deal with the demolition of his beliefs.

 

[Belz...]

- I'm back!!!

- Why,
- hello
- Jabba.
- How are you
- Doing ?

I'll keep looking for more indirect evidence that the dating has to be wrong.

Interesting turn of phrase.

 

[Belz...]

Ladewig,
- Tell me which particular post, and which particular Q or C within that post, that you would like me to respond to first and I will give you the best answer I can come up with. If you continue to do that, I will continue to provide my best answers.
--- Jabba

So you can just ignore post after post, and other people have to do the work of finding which post your ignored for you ? Knowing that they won't, isn't that a bit dishonest ?

 

[Jabba]

Thank you for asking, Mr. Jabba.

1674, 1675, or 1676. I think many of the posters here would be impressed with your simply picking any one of those posts and responding comprehensively. I was going to tell you to pick the easiest and focus solely on that; but I'll make it even easier for you. Pick any one of those three posts and describe why we, and any objective observer, would consider those points in that post crucial to the discussion.

- Thanks, Ladewig. I'll see what I can do.
--- jabba

 

[dafydd]

- Thanks, Ladewig. I'll see what I can do.
--- jabba

What you need to do is admit that there is no evidence to contradict the C14 dating.

 

[AdMan]

What you need to do is admit that there is no evidence to contradict the C14 dating.

^This.

Time to put up or shut up, Jabba.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

But the shroud has to be true otherwise jabba has wasted decades of his life and his need to believe can't deal with the fact that the TS is a medieval fake.

 

[Agatha]

- Thanks, Ladewig. I'll see what I can do.

Sooner rather than later would be good, considering the length of time this thread has been running.

But the shroud has to be true otherwise jabba has wasted decades of his life and his need to believe can't deal with the fact that the TS is a medieval fake.

Agreed. Wasting decades of one's life on a fake must be difficult to accept, and I don't underestimate how upsetting that must be. But the truth will set him free, and the truth is that the shroud is a mediaeval fake.