Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Ladewig]

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

Jabba, just walk away from this thread.

If you have been studying the Shroud for years on end
and you cannot, off the top of your head, explain why
scientific evidence is important in a scientific debate, then
you need to give it up.

You haven't the first clue as to what goes into a scientific debate.

You haven't the first clue as to what goes into scientific testing.

You don't even know what C14 dating is!

That's the part I consider most absurd. If you don't know
what C14 dating involves, then how can you dogmatically
insist that the results be twisted to fit your worldview.


Jabba, just walk away from this thread.

We have explained, in as many different ways as we
can, our position and how we arrived at it and you
still cannot accurately summarize any single point we made.


Jabba, just walk away from this thread.


You have repeatedly demonstrated a closed-mindedness
that will prevent even agreement on the definitions of
the terms used in this debate. No forward progress
can be made in this debate as long as you are participating.
I almost feel embarrassed using the
word debate when talking to you because you don't
even know what a debate is.


Jabba, just walk away from this thread.

________________________
If ever there was a thread that needed kittens and recipes, this is it.

 

[SezMe]

Well said, Ladewig.

 

[Giordano]

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

Yes, please see what you can do. I'm sure if you look around your attic and basement you will find the evidence (invalidating the 14 C results) that everyone here has begged from you for months! Or maybe you left it in your other jacket pocket? Take your time- I'm sure you must have it somewhere around, given your intense interest in the Shroud for years and years and years, but you just temporarily misplaced it.

 

[Dinwar]

Jabba, what are we going to compare the contamination against? Specifically, how much contamination is necessary to make a 1st century cloth look like it's from the 14th century?

Until you provide that number, you cannot prove that the shroud is older than the C14 dating says it is. It's impossible. It cannot be done. Because invalidating the C14 dating is, by the nature of the dating methods, proving that exactly that much contamination occurred. If there's not enough contamination, your argument disolves even if it is contaminated--the cloth still won't be old enough. If there's too much contamination, the argument is wrong the other way--it can't be the shroud of Jeshua bin Yoseph, because it's too old.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Over at his own forum, Jabba keeps saying that all he wants to do is cast "reasonable doubt" on the C14 result.

I responded with this:

Reasonable doubt … disqualify.

Jabba, you cannot be a little bit pregnant.

The C14 dating is a quantified consistent scientific result from three independent professional laboratories.

Each lab states the confidence of their result as 95%, and since they confirm each other, the combined confidence is 98.75%. So the 'reasonable doubt' is less than 1.25%. This is based on the known realities of the actual test conditions.

Unless you can provide new and hitherto unknown evidence about the test conditions, that is where your 'reasonable doubt' stands.


All you have been doing is rehashing the known conditions, the known limitations of the test, but they are exactly that: Known. They are part of the reason the labs state their certainty as 95%. Telling us about those conditions again changes nada.

Hans

 

[Marduk]

Jabba, what are we going to compare the contamination against? Specifically, how much contamination is necessary to make a 1st century cloth look like it's from the 14th century?

it would require time travel
this is ref a patch, but the same would be true for any contamination, contamination does not strip away carbon 14

its crap as well, the patch was apparently medievil and dates to the 14th C
but it was a patch so some original material would also be present, if the shroud really was from the time of Jesus (using 0 for ease of computation
the carbon 14 atoms present would average out in the test sample to 700CE

to have a test come back 14th C, the patch would need to have been applied 800 years in the future
its a miracle

 

[pakeha]

Over at his own forum, Jabba keeps saying that all he wants to do is cast "reasonable doubt" on the C14 result. ...
All you have been doing is rehashing the known conditions, the known limitations of the test, but they are exactly that: Known. They are part of the reason the labs state their certainty as 95%. Telling us about those conditions again changes nada.

Hans

I just peeked at Jabba's forum and saw it was up-dated two days ago.
I don't recall these bits in the general statement:

1.4. We also believe that we will be doing a great public service if we can bring our conclusion to worldly consensus. (Such a conclusion should give anyone serious pause – whether believer or nonbeliever, and whether the image on the Shroud is supernatural or not — and should also put any sarcastic skeptics into their rightful places… which would be a good thing.)

2. Our Plan

2.1. But then, how could we possibly bring our conclusion to a worldly consensus..?
2.2. Well, we do have the Internet at our fingertips. And what, for instance, if we could get Wikipedia to accept our conclusion?

Shouldn't Jabba be trying to establish the age of the TS rather than indulging in folies de grandeur?
Or have we reached the point where he establishes a special 'fund' to finance this noble project?
One which accepts donations via Paypal, WU and MG?

 

[Dinwar]

it would require time travel
this is ref a patch, but the same would be true for any contamination, contamination does not strip away carbon 14

Why do you say it'll require time travel? Far as I can tell, all it would require is math--I'm just looking for a number, is all. And while contamination usually doesn't strip away C14 (there could be chemical reactions that do, or the fire could have released some, so it's not impossible, it's just that the volume is minute), it DOES add C12, from a variety of sources.

All of that is really beside the point, though. The main thrust of this line of argument is to get Jabba to demonstrate that he knows the basics of the methods involved. If he's incapable of even doing this very basic math, we can safely ignore anything else he says because the odds of him having a correct idea are no better than chance.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Ladewig,
- Here's the first one.

Me: 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.

1. The dating "has" to be wrong? Not interested in facts, I take it? (I've known that for a while, actually)...

Garrette,

- "Has to be wrong" was a poor choice of words on my part...

- I was trying to describe what I was calling "indirect" evidence (in contrast to "direct" evidence") in regard to there being something wrong with the carbon dating.
- What I'm calling direct evidence has to do with the methodology of the dating process -- whereas, what I'm calling indirect evidence has to do with the results of the dating process
- As examples, I see the fact of failing to meet the protocols, and the results of the statistical analyses by Van Haelst, as direct evidence for invalidity. Even together, these don't constitute proof, but they are direct evidence for invalidity... Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today, as indirect evidence that no one could have produced it 600 years ago.
- If it's true that no one could have produced it 600 years ago, the dating "has to be wrong."

- Hope that helps.
- I suspect that it won't, but it's probably the best that I can do re that objection.

--- Jabba

 

[zooterkin]

- If it's true that no one could have produced it 600 years ago, the dating "has to be wrong."

Alternatively, the dating is correct, and you need to re-examine the assumptions that led you to believe that it could not have been produced 600 years ago.

 

[Agatha]

Ladewig,
- Here's the first one.

Me: 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.

Garrette,

- "Has to be wrong" was a poor choice of words on my part...

- I was trying to describe what I was calling "indirect" evidence (in contrast to "direct" evidence") in regard to there being something wrong with the carbon dating.
- What I'm calling direct evidence has to do with the methodology of the dating process -- whereas, what I'm calling indirect evidence has to do with the results of the dating process
- As examples, I see the fact of failing to meet the protocols, and the results of the statistical analyses by Van Haelst, as direct evidence for invalidity. Even together, these don't constitute proof, but they are direct evidence for invalidity... Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today, as indirect evidence that no one could have produced it 600 years ago.
- If it's true that no one could have produced it 600 years ago, the dating "has to be wrong."

- Hope that helps.
- I suspect that it won't, but it's probably the best that I can do re that objection.

--- Jabba

That is just a classic argument from incredulity: "I can't imagine how it was produced 600 years ago, so it must have been produced 2000 years ago". That is not just a logical fallacy, it's internally inconsistent.

It's not even close to addressing the FACT that the carbon dating is valid, and that the shroud was produced in mediaeval times.

Science doesn't work by beliefs and faith, it works by evidence. Do you have any?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Alternatively, the dating is correct, and you need to re-examine the assumptions that led you to believe that it could not have been produced 600 years ago.

Zooterkin,
- If I understand your point, I agree.
- I was just trying to explain what I meant by "has to be wrong."
- As we go forth, one of the "interim" conclusions I'll be trying to substantiate is that the probability of someone producing the Shroud 600 years ago is extremely small.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

...


- As examples, I see the fact of failing to meet the protocols, and the results of the statistical analyses by Van Haelst, as direct evidence for invalidity. Even together, these don't constitute proof, but they are direct evidence for invalidity...

1)

the fact of failing to meet the protocols...

You need to source this assertion, Jabba

2)

results of the statistical analyses by Van Haelst

Please provide a source for this claim

Jabba, are you really quite so unaware of how construct and argue a case?
Are you completely unaware of sourcing evey step of the way?
And if need be, over and over again to avoid having your readers scrambling to find your references?

Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today, as indirect evidence that no one could have produced it 600 years ago.
- If it's true that no one could have produced it 600 years ago, the dating "has to be wrong."

Jabba, do you know what kind of a logical fallacy you've just commited?
Are you aware you've commited a logical fallacy?

... it's probably the best that I can do re that objection.

Does this mean you refuse to put yourself out in the least on a subject you claim you want to clarify at Wikipedia?

 

[Akhenaten]

<waffle>

Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today, as indirect evidence that no one could have produced it 600 years ago.

The highlighted words are Wilburspeak for "I've invented a story."

In any case, how many modern scientists and artists have have tried to reproduce the shroud? All of them? If not, then your "apparent fact" loses a lot of its apparency. And its factuality.

Doesn't leave much, does it?

By the way, what were the reasons for the inability of all these alleged scientists and artists to make a reproduction? What standard was applied to the attempts in order to decide on a pass/fail for them.

- If it's true that no one could have produced it 600 years ago, the dating "has to be wrong."

Since you haven't even begun to demonstrate that no one could have made the shroud 600 years ago then this conditional statement is utterly meaningless.

- Hope that helps.
- I suspect that it won't, but it's probably the best that I can do re that objection.

Of course it doesn't help. You haven't even attempted an answer to the question you were actually asked.

 

[Akhenaten]

<waffle>

As we go forth, one of the "interim" conclusions I'll be trying to substantiate is that the probability of someone producing the Shroud 600 years ago is extremely small.

That's not "going forth" at all. It's yet more of you thrashing about trying to stop the discussion altogether or, in fact, to put it in reverse because you're unable to answer even the most basic questions about C14 dating.

 

[Mashuna]

Zooterkin,
- If I understand your point, I agree.
- I was just trying to explain what I meant by "has to be wrong."
- As we go forth, one of the "interim" conclusions I'll be trying to substantiate is that the probability of someone producing the Shroud 600 years ago is extremely small.
--- Jabba

<moves Jabba into the DOC, Yrreg and GIBHOR categories of analytic ability and debate skills>

 

[Dinwar]

- Hope that helps.
- I suspect that it won't, but it's probably the best that I can do re that objection.

No, it doesn't. This is nothing more than further obfuscation on your part. You're telling us what you're going to tell us AGAIN, without telling us anything!!! Worse, you're continuing to try to force a wholly artificial classification system for evidence down our throats in an attempt to dictate the terms of this conversation--AGAIN.

- As examples, I see the fact of failing to meet the protocols, and the results of the statistical analyses by Van Haelst, as direct evidence for invalidity.

Only because you're so biased that you'll see ANYTHING as evidence against the C14 dating. The alteration of protocols is part of the normal process of science, and any rational definition of "direct evidence" would be constrained to an actual discussion of the dating itself, not the protocols.

Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today, as indirect evidence that no one could have produced it 600 years ago.

Jabba, you're a liar. I'm sorry, but that's the only conclusion I can draw from this. We've shown you multiple times that it CAN BE and HAS BEEN reproduced. You are not an honest person, and this proves it.

Seriously, what's the point of debating with you if you're going to lie?

- If it's true that no one could have produced it 600 years ago, the dating "has to be wrong."

No. The C14 dating trumps the image. Besides, your argument cannot be "the image is impossible to produce", but rather "I can't figure out how to make it"--which is the definition of Argument from Incredulity.

Let's put it this way, Jabba (though I doubt posing a direct question will do any good): How can you get a 1st century image on a 14th century cloth? Until you can explain that, the dating MUST trump the image.

- As we go forth, one of the "interim" conclusions I'll be trying to substantiate is that the probability of someone producing the Shroud 600 years ago is extremely small.

The fact that people have reproduced it, and those reproductions were done using Medieval methods, and they've been posted IN THIS THREAD, makes this a non-starter. This argument has already been disproven.

 

[Belz...]

Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today

Even though they do, repeatedly, and this has been pointed out to you ? At this point you don't seem to be honest at all about this.

 

[Garrette]

Sigh. Others have said what I would have said better than I could have. I will now simply amend my latest post to say that Jabba does not merely resemble a liar, he is one.

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig,
- Here's the first one.

Me: 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.

Garrette,

- "Has to be wrong" was a poor choice of words on my part...

- I was trying to describe what I was calling "indirect" evidence (in contrast to "direct" evidence") in regard to there being something wrong with the carbon dating.
- What I'm calling direct evidence has to do with the methodology of the dating process -- whereas, what I'm calling indirect evidence has to do with the results of the dating process
- As examples, I see the fact of failing to meet the protocols, and the results of the statistical analyses by Van Haelst, as direct evidence for invalidity. Even together, these don't constitute proof, but they are direct evidence for invalidity... Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today, as indirect evidence that no one could have produced it 600 years ago.
- If it's true that no one could have produced it 600 years ago, the dating "has to be wrong."

- Hope that helps.
- I suspect that it won't, but it's probably the best that I can do re that objection.

--- Jabba

And now we are back on page 9 where we tried to explain to Jabba what is and what is not scientific evidence.

Jabba, you do not understand scientific debating. You do not understand scientific testing. You do not understand scientific evidence. You do not even understand carbon14 dating.

Why are you even attempting to prove something using a format that confounds and confuses you?

Let this thread die. Walk away from this thread Jabba.