Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

e. I may be wasting time with this preface

<snip>

Fortunately it's not ours.

 

[Dinwar]

Jabba's posts are becoming increasingly disjointed.

Jabba, these ARE NOT conclusions. They are ASSUMPTIONS. Conclusions require data. You've thus far been unable to supply ANY data to support them.

And Akri has it right: As you've been told--many, many, many, many times--the presence of blood on the cloth in no way invalidates the C14 dating. Period. There is no possible way for it to do so. Focusing on it is a complete waste of time.

Now, I'll try to write the first chapter.

Given that it's been over 110 pages, don't you think it's time to give up the pretense that you have anything worthwhile to say? If you did, you'd have said it by now.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>
e. I may be wasting time with this preface (as I'm sure that you guys believe), but it is in an effort to figure out how best to deal with so many opponents, questions and comments in a timely manner when I haven’t kept good track of the relevant material I’ve been reading (not really “studying” until recently) over the last 40(?) years.
f. But, I'll be back.

--- Jabba

Rich:
Your only "opponent" is reality...

 

[Agatha]

Let me see if I can phrase this another way, so that Jabba can understand.

The presence or absence of blood on the shroud is not evidence for or against a 1st century date. Even if you were to bring evidence that there is blood on this piece of cloth, it would not help establish the date of the shroud.
So this excursion into blood is really a waste of your time and effort, as everyone here keeps trying to explain to you.

In order to cast doubt on the mediaeval date, you must concentrate on the carbon dating results and nothing else. None of these "indirect evidences" of blood make any difference to the dating of the shroud.

 

[abaddon]

Let me see if I can phrase this another way, so that Jabba can understand.

The presence or absence of blood on the shroud is not evidence for or against a 1st century date. Even if you were to bring evidence that there is blood on this piece of cloth, it would not help establish the date of the shroud.
So this excursion into blood is really a waste of your time and effort, as everyone here keeps trying to explain to you.

In order to cast doubt on the mediaeval date, you must concentrate on the carbon dating results and nothing else. None of these "indirect evidences" of blood make any difference to the dating of the shroud.

That's just point one.

Point 2 states it is impossible that the blood is painted on. Explain this Jabba?

 

[Akri]

J
Jabba, these ARE NOT conclusions. They are ASSUMPTIONS. Conclusions require data. You've thus far been unable to supply ANY data to support them.

To be fair, I don't think he's claiming to have support for those claims yet. Rather, that's the line of argument he's hoping to support. Which is still problematic (he's decided what conclusion he wants to reach before actually examining the data, and the conclusion he's hoping for doesn't actually help his case anyway).

 

[Akhenaten]

To be fair, I don't think he's claiming to have support for those claims yet.

It's only the start of a new iteration of the same argument. The same old claims of support will be along presently, almost as if they hadn't been refuted the first 58 times they were made.

Rather, that's the line of argument he's hoping to support.

Yeah, but it's a futile and decreasingly entertaining hope. It's the same preamble to the same failgument that we've been reading every week or so for more than a year.

Which is still problematic (he's decided what conclusion he wants to reach before actually examining the data, and the conclusion he's hoping for doesn't actually help his case anyway).

Exactly.

 

[Dinwar]

To be fair, I don't think he's claiming to have support for those claims yet.

Like the Pharoh said: He's presented all of these arguments before, a few of them in depth. At this point, pretending that he's just presenting these as argumetns to be supported later doesn't fly. My impression is that he saw a new person in the discussion and is banking on us not pointing out the previous 118 pages. I certainly don't expect anyone to READ all those pages.

(he's decided what conclusion he wants to reach before actually examining the data, and the conclusion he's hoping for doesn't actually help his case anyway)

I pointed that out.....probably a hundred pages or so ago. Even if we accept that Jabba intends to support these arguments, they amount to nothing more than ad hoc justifications to support an a priori conclusion. Jabba's logic is "X is true; let's try to figure out why".

On the plus side, he's no longer pretending this is a legal battle. So, a minor win.

 

[Garrette]

Human blood was as readily available in the 14th Century as the 1st.

You don't have to kill someone to get human blood. I've been known to give up a pint to the Red Cross from time to time.

That's if it even was human blood. Animal blood was also readily available.

Since you have no evidence that the Romans ever crucified a cow this is irrelevant.

[/Jabba]

 

[Garrette]

That's just point one.

Point 2 states it is impossible that the blood is painted on. Explain this Jabba?

Dollars to doughnuts that his support for this claim is the already oft-debunked silliness about the serum rings around the individual wounds. Coupled, of course, with the nonsensical apologetics surrounding blood rivulets in the hair and also with a continued refusal to address the anatomical problems and artistic stylings.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba isn't a quitter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/twa800/msearch?query=jabba&pos=850&cnt=10

 

[Mashuna]

Jabba isn't a quitter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/twa800/msearch?query=jabba&pos=850&cnt=10

Consistent, too.

 

[catsmate]

Jabba isn't a quitter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/twa800/msearch?query=jabba&pos=850&cnt=10

Oh good grief, he's a conspiracy nut as well.

 

[Jabba]

Layout

- I think that what we need -- in order to allow someone trying to follow our debate to actually, effectively evaluate it -- is a permanent “flow chart,” or perhaps “algorithm,” of what we’ve said. I think that OUR DEBATE, itself, could also profit (big time) from such a layout.
- As I’m sure you all know, some websites allow the reader to sort posts by what’s being responded to, rather than by chronological order – and, in fact (I think), accomplish the above.
- I think that would be very useful in our situation. Perhaps, such a format could even "abbreviate" the responses, and REALLY be useful for taking in the bigger picture “at a glance.”
- I assume that doing that here would be impossible – or, at least, next to impossible.

- Any thoughts? (If you think it’s impossible, or that it could never do any good anyway, please try to say that without being sarcastic – I already know how poorly you generally think about my thinkings and efforts.)
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

- I think that what we need -- in order to allow someone trying to follow our debate to actually, effectively evaluate it -- is a permanent “flow chart,” or perhaps “algorithm,” of what we’ve said. I think that OUR DEBATE, itself, could also profit (big time) from such a layout.

This is a SCIENCE debate. This is not a computer program.

And anyone who reads the thread will see a simple, glaringly evident truth: one side has massive amounts of evidence (our's), and one doesn't (your's). The best support for your ideas even comes from my side, not yours.

- As I’m sure you all know, some websites allow the reader to sort posts by what’s being responded to, rather than by chronological order – and, in fact (I think), accomplish the above.

Irrelevant. This one doesn't. We've made our objections very clear, usually point-by-point. It should be easy enough for you to argue against them in a similar manner.

- I think that would be very useful in our situation. Perhaps, such a format could even "abbreviate" the responses, and REALLY be useful for taking in the bigger picture “at a glance.”

Why? What possible purpose would this serve? It would do nothing for this debate. You're in the nitty-gritty, untamed realm of argument now, Jabba. The details are important. You don't get to ignore them anymore.

- Any thoughts?

Yes: Please stop trying to argue about how this debate should be conducted, and please focus on what's being discussed. This post is technically off-topic.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I think that what we need -- in order to allow someone trying to follow our debate to actually, effectively evaluate it -- is a permanent “flow chart,” or perhaps “algorithm,” of what we’ve said. I think that OUR DEBATE, itself, could also profit (big time) from such a layout.
- As I’m sure you all know, some websites allow the reader to sort posts by what’s being responded to, rather than by chronological order – and, in fact (I think), accomplish the above.
- I think that would be very useful in our situation. Perhaps, such a format could even "abbreviate" the responses, and REALLY be useful for taking in the bigger picture “at a glance.”
- I assume that doing that here would be impossible – or, at least, next to impossible.

- Any thoughts? (If you think it’s impossible, or that it could never do any good anyway, please try to say that without being sarcastic – I already know how poorly you generally think about my thinkings and efforts.)
--- Jabba

Rich:

The best way to limit sarcasm, or even snarkasm, is to address the issues. Don't try to control the "debate"; just present your evidence. For instance, your seem to be pretending, since your return, that demonstrating that there were blood on the cloth would somehow cast doubt upon the ¹⁴C dates. Such is not the case. Blood on the cloth would indicate that there was blood on the cloth; the ¹⁴C dates would indicate that the blood was medieval.

The ¹⁴C dates are the first hurdle. Until you deal with them, the rest of you speculations are speculations about a medieval artifact.

 

[abaddon]

- I think that what we need -- in order to allow someone trying to follow our debate to actually, effectively evaluate it -- is a permanent “flow chart,” or perhaps “algorithm,” of what we’ve said. I think that OUR DEBATE, itself, could also profit (big time) from such a layout.

I am not surprised you do, as you now realise that format makes it easier to obfuscate, and you want that facility. No, let us have it in plain english, black and white, linear fashion.

- As I’m sure you all know, some websites allow the reader to sort posts by what’s being responded to, rather than by chronological order – and, in fact (I think), accomplish the above.

While making it easier to hide among the confusion of war.

- I think that would be very useful in our situation. Perhaps, such a format could even "abbreviate" the responses, and REALLY be useful for taking in the bigger picture “at a glance.”

Once again, you want this, because you know this makes it easier to hide the holes in your arguments. No.

- I assume that doing that here would be impossible – or, at least, next to impossible.

Even if it were, the rest of us would view the thread in the usual way, and rebut you in the same way. You would simply be hobbling yourself.

- Any thoughts? (If you think it’s impossible, or that it could never do any good anyway, please try to say that without being sarcastic – I already know how poorly you generally think about my thinkings and efforts.)
--- Jabba

The only way it would work would be to enforce that way of viewing on the entire site, and you know that's not going to happen.

For a change, why not discuss the matters at hand instead of all this pointless meta-discussion of how you might like discussion to be held?

 

[Agatha]

<snip attempts to control the discussion>

- Any thoughts? (If you think it’s impossible, or that it could never do any good anyway, please try to say that without being sarcastic – I already know how poorly you generally think about my thinkings and efforts.)
--- Jabba

It's impossible, and would do no good anyway. No snark.

Jabba, please try to understand that the courtroom debate format you envisage, or lists of 'for' or 'against' each point of view that you appear to want now are not suited to questions of scientific fact. Science is about formulating a hypothesis and testing it.

Science is not about which side has the more effective communicator, or which side posts more. It is not about un-evidenced conclusions or assertions. It is simply about evidence and facts. Any conclusion must take into account all the facts, not just the ones you like or which agree with your pet hope.

The carbon dating results from all three individual laboratories are facts. You cannot handwave them away just because you dislike them.

At the moment, your hypothesis is "the shroud is of 1st century origin". The fact of the carbon dating results falsifies that hypothesis, so unless you can point to some specific problem which affects the results independently obtained by all three laboratories, you must discard that hypothesis.

It is not easy to discard hypotheses of which you have become enamoured. It's not easy to accept that a belief which was held sincerely is not just unsupported by the evidence, but actively undermined by the evidence. However, it is the only honest thing to do.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I think that what we need

<snip>

We don't need anything.

You need a means of demonstrating that the carbon dating of the SoT is faulty.

- As I’m sure you all know, some websites allow the reader to sort posts by what’s being responded to, rather than by chronological order – and, in fact (I think), accomplish the above.

No it won't.

- I think that would be very useful in our situation.

The situation is that the shroud is a medieval fake. No amount of formatting is going to change that.

Perhaps, such a format could even "abbreviate" the responses, and REALLY be useful for taking in the bigger picture “at a glance.”

There is no bigger picture.

- I assume that doing that here would be impossible – or, at least, next to impossible.

That's a time saver, eh?

- Any thoughts? (If you think it’s impossible, or that it could never do any good anyway, please try to say that without being sarcastic

It's impossible and it could never do any good anyway.

– I already know how poorly you generally think about my thinkings and efforts.)

Then perhaps you should stop posting the same nonsense over and over, hoping for a different reaction.

 

[Jabba]

Layout

Rich:

The best way to limit sarcasm, or even snarkasm, is to address the issues. Don't try to control the "debate"; just present your evidence. For instance, your seem to be pretending, since your return, that demonstrating that there were blood on the cloth would somehow cast doubt upon the ¹⁴C dates. Such is not the case. Blood on the cloth would indicate that there was blood on the cloth; the ¹⁴C dates would indicate that the blood was medieval.

The ¹⁴C dates are the first hurdle. Until you deal with them, the rest of you speculations are speculations about a medieval artifact.

Slowvehicle,

- I am trying to do just what you say -- address the issues, and present my evidence.
- But under the circumstances -- the specifics of which I have indicated numerous times in the past -- doing so is extremely difficult for me. Starting with post #2530, at least, I've been trying to argue that the blood is real. Since that time, I have made numerous claims, and presented some of what I have considered evidence. You guys have made numerous responses to almost all (each) of my claims, and I've responded to a few of those.
- My claim is that if those "trails" were handy, "staked out, I'd have an easy way of remembering what's gone before and what I need to address next. We could all easily see where things stand with each of my claims. We could all easily see the numerous rebuttals, that you (plural) often refer to, and that I have left hanging.

- For one thing, I have tried (numerous times, I think) to show my interim conclusions, in my extended syllogism, that lead to my belief that the blood stains" being real blood is actually crucial to a conclusion that the carbon dating is wrong. That hasn't helped any, so now, I'm focusing on that first interim conclusion -- i.e., the blood is real.
- To do that, I need to stipulate where we are in this particular sub-issue -- and, having the kind of structure I'm suggesting, would do that for me. At that point I could probably abbreviate (summarize) the particular trail (giving us a faster ability to follow the trail), and you guys could effectively point to all my loose ends, instead of just claiming that a particular claim has been oft rebutted, or refuted.

--- Jabba