• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Zoo,
- You seem to be saying that the carbon dating has to be correct -- that there is no reasonable doubt here. I claim that only a bias can dismiss reasonable doubt in this situation.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...


Well in 23 years since the C14 was published, no real scientists have ever published a single word disputing the C14. Not one. So no reasonable doubt has been expressed by any genuine scientists.

You doubt the C14 because you think it does not agree with what you believe from Christian shroud fanatics who write on the internet claiming to have found blood on the shroud or claiming that the image must be that of a crucified human.

You are happy to be fooled by Christian fanatical writing of that sort.

But if any of those claims has any real scientifically valid evidence, then why is none of it ever accepted to be published in any real science journals?

Do you have any real publications where they show that there is significant amounts of 2000 year old blood on the shroud?

See that's the problem - you keep quoting these shroud reports as if they were fact, but the truth is that none of them can ever pass the scrutiny of real science journals, and they are always rejected as nothing more than quite obvious religious wishful thinking.

You actually have absolutely no evidence at all.

Whereas as the C14 is such strong and confirmed evidence, that it’s never even been genuinely contested.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
pgwenthold,
- Another interesting point to discuss.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

No. There is nothing to discuss about it. It is what it is. It is like saying the shroud is 6 m long or whatever. There's nothing else to say, but, yes.
 
Jabba said:
Zoo,
- You seem to be saying that the carbon dating has to be correct -- that there is no reasonable doubt here. I claim that only a bias can dismiss reasonable doubt in this situation.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

No, the scientific method is what can dismiss a reasonable doubt. That's kind of the entire point of the scientific method.

IIRC, the accuracy of C14 dating for objects that are a few thousand years old or less is 99.9%. That means that if 1 laboratory ran the test 1,000 times, it would be expected to be wrong once. As it is, 3 laboratories ran the test. For the C14 dating to be wrong, that would mean that all 3 labs would have had to have had that one in a thousand chance. If I remember my probability calculations correctly from school, that means you're literally talking about a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance. One in a billion. If all three laboratories ran the test a billion times all 3 would be wrong once.

That doubt of yours isn't all that reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Zoo,
- No. You just proved your own bias by insisting that there is no reasonable doubt.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

When person A says there is no reasonable doubt that the world is more than 6000 years old and person B insists there is, only one of them is biased.

Proponents for and against a particular proposition are only displaying equal bias if there is an equal amount of evidence for each position. If the evidence is 100% on one side, it can only be bias that makes a few people insist on believing the opposite; accepting that evidence is not an example of bias.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
IIRC, the accuracy of C14 dating for objects that are a few thousand years old or less is 99.9%. That means that if 1 laboratory ran the test 1,000 times, it would be expected to be wrong once. As it is, 3 laboratories ran the test. For the C14 dating to be wrong, that would mean that all 3 labs would have had to have had that one in a thousand chance.
Click to expand...
Not only that all three labs also tested control samples whose ages were known, one of which was 1st century, without knowing which was the shroud, and got the correct dates for them.
 
The Blood

Jabba:
- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.
Dinwar said:
...The reason you can say this is the reason that anyone who wanted to could reproduce the image: IT IS WRITTEN DOWN. ANY literate person in the Middle Ages could have read the description and gone "Hey, I know how to do that!"...
Click to expand...
Dinwar,
- Could be that you have a point here... I would need time to dig up and confirm the different claims.
- Here's the best I can do for now:
1) According to the claims of various experts, the number of scourge wounds is right on target, done with roman flagrums of the first century, by two different persons, of differing height, from both sides.
2) The spear wound is right on target for insuring that the victim is dead and for producing the appropriate blood and "water."
3) The body had to be washed before the shroud was applied, and
4) The shroud had to be lifted without effecting the stains.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
1) According to the claims of various experts, the number of scourge wounds is right on target, done with roman flagrums of the first century, by two different persons, of differing height, from both sides.
Click to expand...
And the paper by these "experts" setting out the justification for these claims is published in which peer reviewed scientific journal?
 
The Blood

Jabba:
- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...
Dinwar said:
...You are aware that dying cloth was an art perfected long before the Middle Ages, right? I mean, you seem to think that this is somehow special. It's not--I've seen far more detaild woven tapestries...
Click to expand...
Dinwar,
- If I understand what you're saying, you're forgetting the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds. And, to get such detail of these wounds would seem to be impossible if the "artist" had to lift the Shroud off the body.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
I guess that my main claim here is that skeptics have needs also, and that these needs are much more effective than skeptics generally think that they are.
Click to expand...


No, your main claim is that the Shroud of Turin is an artefact of the 1st century CE.

It's far too embarrassing a claim for this red herring about the needs of skeptics to distract us from it, so now you're on record as having two completely absurd claims on the table.

Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
The Blood

Jabba:
- I'll leave it at that for now.
Dinwar said:
...You've still got nothing. The C14 data proves it's from the 14th century, and your arguments against it amount to "I don't want to believe it, so I'm going to ignore all the data".
Click to expand...
Dinwar,
- I think you're doing the same when you say, "The C14 data proves it's from the 14th century...
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Dinwar,
- I guess that my main claim here is that skeptics have needs also, and that these needs are much more effective than skeptics generally think that they are.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

I can't understand what you're saying at all. I know I have needs--I'm even familiar with the hierarchy of needs. What does biology and psychology have to do with whether or not the C14 dating is wrong? (Remember, Jabba isn't just saying that there's blood on the shroud--he's saying that the mere presence of blood invalidates the C14 dating.)

- You seem to be saying that the carbon dating has to be correct -- that there is no reasonable doubt here. I claim that only a bias can dismiss reasonable doubt in this situation.
Click to expand...
You've given no reason to accept this. We've shown you, again and again, that your arguments are non-sequiters. That means that your conclusion does not follow from your reasons, if you're unfamiliar with the term.

1) According to the claims of various experts, the number of scourge wounds is right on target, done with roman flagrums of the first century, by two different persons, of differing height, from both sides.
Click to expand...
....which means that the fraudster who made the shroud read the Bible. Hardly an uncommon occurrence in the Middle Ages.

2) The spear wound is right on target for insuring that the victim is dead and for producing the appropriate blood and "water."
Click to expand...
....which means that the fraudster who made the shroud read the Bible. Hardly an uncommon occurrence in the Middle Ages.

3) The body had to be washed before the shroud was applied, and
Click to expand...
....which means that the fraudster who made the shroud read the Bible. Hardly an uncommon occurrence in the Middle Ages.

4) The shroud had to be lifted without effecting the stains.
Click to expand...
Actually, the fact that we don't see the top of the head between the two images means that the BODY was lifted off of the SHROUD. It was never wrapped up. If it had been, we'd see a highly distorted image of the top of the head, thanks to the image being transferred when the cloth was wrapped around the body.

- I must admit that this is an interesting issue -- I had wondered about this myself, but had never asked anyone about it
Click to expand...
:boggled:

All right, I'm going to go ahead and say it: Jabba, if this is the level of knowledge you have about the shroud, you have wasted 20 years of your life. I'm sorry, but that's the truth of it. I've never looked into the shroud much, except as an interesting case-study for C14 dating, and just by reading this thread even I know this much about it.
 
Jabba said:
- If I understand what you're saying, you're forgetting the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds.
Click to expand...


You have no evidence to support this claim.


Jabba said:
And, to get such detail of these wounds would seem to be impossible if the "artist" had to lift the Shroud off the body.
Click to expand...


Now you're making claims based on other claims that you have no evidence to support.

This is looking more like a fairytale with every post you make, Jabba
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dinwar said:
...You've still got nothing. The C14 data proves it's from the 14th century, and your arguments against it amount to "I don't want to believe it, so I'm going to ignore all the data".
Click to expand...


Dinwar,
- I think you're doing the same when you say, "The C14 data proves it's from the 14th century...
--- Jabba
Click to expand...


Of course you do. That's why you'll always be laughably wrong.

Everything you think about the shroud is wrong.

Everything.
 
The Codswallop

Jabba said:
Jabba:
- As far as I can tell, you guys just claim that it has been duplicated. Show me where you have proven that it has.
- And further, show me where they've used a dead body to do it.
Click to expand...


Why do they need to use a dead body to produce a replica of the shroud?

There's no evidence that a dead body was used to produce the original.
 
Jabba said:
- If I understand what you're saying, you're forgetting the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds. And, to get such detail of these wounds would seem to be impossible if the "artist" had to lift the Shroud off the body.
Click to expand...

If you're left with something which is impossible, then the correct thing to do is to abandon the hypothesis, rather than to postulate that something impossible happened.
 
The Gobbledigook

Jabba said:
Dinwar said:
...and 2) the image on the shroud today isn't what needs to be reproduced--the 14th century bright and colorful image is...
Click to expand...


Dinwar,
- I must admit that this is an interesting issue -- I had wondered about this myself, but had never asked anyone about it. If I can find the time, I'll see if someone has a good answer...
--- Jabba
Click to expand...


You haven't looked into this very basic and very obvious point despite spending 20 years investigating the shroud?

You are clearly using a different definition of 'investigate' than everyone else here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom