Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Humots]

- Here’s how I see our current situation.
- Over the past several pages, I’ve been trying to deal with 6 different, but related, issues.

1. How could all three labs get the same wrong answer?
2. What’s my “evidence” for patching?
3. How could so many experts -- examining the sample area for patching – miss real signs of patching?
4. How could so many experts – examining the sample area for patching -- miss a patch large enough to affect the dating by 1300 years?
5. Carbon dating, being such an objective process, how could bias affect the results?
6. How could the area examined by Arizona, Oxford and Zurich be such a poor selection, when highly respected carbon dating scientists – including representatives of those 3 labs – selected the sample?

- I’d like to continue addressing #’s 3 and 4, but if you guys would prefer that I address one of the others first (#2, for instance), let me know.

--- Jabba

Jabba: quit playing games. You have taken one issue and inflated it to six issues.

All six of those are really the same question. You can deal with all of that in one post.

Well said.

 

[pgwenthold]

- Here’s how I see our current situation.
- Over the past several pages, I’ve been trying to deal with 6 different, but related, issues.

1. How could all three labs get the same wrong answer?
2. What’s my “evidence” for patching?
3. How could so many experts -- examining the sample area for patching – miss real signs of patching?
4. How could so many experts – examining the sample area for patching -- miss a patch large enough to affect the dating by 1300 years?
5. Carbon dating, being such an objective process, how could bias affect the results?
6. How could the area examined by Arizona, Oxford and Zurich be such a poor selection, when highly respected carbon dating scientists – including representatives of those 3 labs – selected the sample?

- I’d like to continue addressing #’s 3 and 4, but if you guys would prefer that I address one of the others first (#2, for instance), let me know.

--- Jabba

7a) When was the patch applied?
b) Who did it?
c) Where did they get the material?
d) Why didn't they document the fact they did it?
e) Why didn't they document how they did it, since what they did was completely unprecedented and has never been reproduced?
f) Why weren't any of the other patches applied using the same techniques?

 

[Agatha]

It's all the same issue, predicated on the existence of the Amazing Invisible Patch™. Why you didn't address the issue in the post above is a mystery.

There is no AIP™, it's just a figment of the imagination of those who are determined to wilfully ignore evidence and reality.

The shroud is not God, it's not Jesus and it's not an embodiment of Christianity. It's just a piece of cloth, dating from around the 14th century. You can accept the reality of the mediaeval origin of the shroud and still have as much faith in God as you ever had, because faith doesn't depend on evidence and certainly not on objects.

Once you accept the 14th century date, you will find that you can appreciate the shroud for what it is, not what you wanted it to be. You've spent twenty years wishing for this piece of cloth to be something it's not. Don't waste any more time looking for fairies at the bottom of the garden or leprechauns at the end of rainbows, start seeing the truly amazing wonders that do exist in the world instead of chasing off after the things that don't exist.

Imagine a hungry person faced with a huge table of marvellous food cooked by the best chefs, but who is persistently looking at the tiny empty table in the corner and insisting that there is an invisible pie on there. That is you, ignoring reality in pursuit of something which doesn't exist. Stop looking for the invisible pie and embrace the reality of the main table, Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

- I just posted something at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9148762#post9148762.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

- Again, I suspect that
1. Human survival depends upon us humans figuring out a way for those of us who disagree with each other to carry out actually effective debate with each other.
2. This claim needs some refinement in that something about the extent of disagreement between the two parties is critical
3. But then, effectively expressing that detail is, itself, almost impossible…
4. Anyway, it’s in the area of how “deep” the disagreement is. The rest of you guys can pretty much get past your disagreements with each other because compared to your disagreements with me, your disagreements with each other are trivial – and, you don’t want to offend anyone who shares your basic disagreements with me.
5. Perhaps, my most basic guideline for myself over the past year in this regard is that in order to actually get somewhere in debate -- in order to have actually effective debate – (for persons who have really basic disagreements with each other) is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.
- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that. But if we can do that, I think that we have a real chance of eventually, but actually, getting somewhere.
- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have – and, can otherwise come up with.
- That’s the idea.

--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

- Here’s how I see our current situation.

<snip>

Through a glass, darkly.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

You think?

 

[carlitos]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

- Again, I suspect that
1. Human survival depends upon us humans figuring out a way for those of us who disagree with each other to carry out actually effective debate with each other.
2. This claim needs some refinement in that something about the extent of disagreement between the two parties is critical
3. But then, effectively expressing that detail is, itself, almost impossible…
4. Anyway, it’s in the area of how “deep” the disagreement is. The rest of you guys can pretty much get past your disagreements with each other because compared to your disagreements with me, your disagreements with each other are trivial – and, you don’t want to offend anyone who shares your basic disagreements with me.
5. Perhaps, my most basic guideline for myself over the past year in this regard is that in order to actually get somewhere in debate -- in order to have actually effective debate – (for persons who have really basic disagreements with each other) is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.
- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that. But if we can do that, I think that we have a real chance of eventually, but actually, getting somewhere.
- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have – and, can otherwise come up with.
- That’s the idea.

--- Jabba

In the 9/11 Conspiracy Forum, Scott Sommers and others have referred to this inability to think, understand, and process information leading to conspiracy beliefs as "muddled thinking." I think that's accurate here. Jabba's thoughts on TWA 800 tip the scales for me.

 

[John Jones]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

- Again, I suspect that
1. Human survival depends upon us humans figuring out a way for those of us who disagree with each other to carry out actually effective debate with each other.


--- Jabba

You can start by providing evidence when asked, rather than parroting the phrase "I'll get to it as soon as possible" This is really old, and you never get around to doing it.

 

[IanS]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

- Again, I suspect that
1. Human survival depends upon us humans figuring out a way for those of us who disagree with each other to carry out actually effective debate with each other.


As someone else once observed - you cannot have rational debates with people who disregard rational objective evidence, which I'm sorry to say almost all committed theists do.


2. This claim needs some refinement in that something about the extent of disagreement between the two parties is critical
3. But then, effectively expressing that detail is, itself, almost impossible…
4. Anyway, it’s in the area of how “deep” the disagreement is. The rest of you guys can pretty much get past your disagreements with each other because compared to your disagreements with me, your disagreements with each other are trivial – and, you don’t want to offend anyone who shares your basic disagreements with me.

The reason most of the rest of us can get past our disagreements is that none of us are trying to make unscientific irrational claims. We are not for example trying to claim that a detailed human image appeared on a shroud due to an unexplained miracle, such as neutron emission from a dead heavenly ascending body. Notice that is an absolutely fundamental question which has barely been addressed in this thread - how on earth could such an image have ever got onto the shroud in the first place, except by a miracle? If a miracle is the only known answer, then there is no need for any further discussion or any C14 or other scientific tests etc., because miracles are now known to be untenable scientific nonsense anyway.
..



5. Perhaps, my most basic guideline for myself over the past year in this regard is that in order to actually get somewhere in debate -- in order to have actually effective debate – (for persons who have really basic disagreements with each other) is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.


No. That's not a way forward. That's a way of attempting to maintain a disagreement indefinitely no matter what the evidence is against you. The honest thing to do here is to engage only in rational objective assessment of the genuine scientifically established evidence. That will lead you to the logically correct outcome immediately, as several of the C14 scientists have pointed out in response to post-publication religious complaints about the validity of their C14 work.

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.
- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that. But if we can do that, I think that we have a real chance of eventually, but actually, getting somewhere.


No. You are deliberately insisting on going around in circles for ever, because you refuse to accept the published science. Here is an absolutely incontrovertible fact for you -if you stick to the genuinely published independent scientific evidence then the shroud dates from 1260-1390AD (Nature C14 paper), and there is no patch (Radiocarbon paper, Jull). That is a 100% fact. That IS the actual scientific evidence

- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have – and, can otherwise come up with.
- That’s the idea.

Unless what you call "evidence" is published in a real science journal by independent properly qualified scientists using a relevant accurate modern technique, then it's worthless as claimed "evidence".

--- Jabba

....

 

[Agatha]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

Forum management? AAH?

<wafflesnip>
4. Anyway, it’s in the area of how “deep” the disagreement is. The rest of you guys can pretty much get past your disagreements with each other because compared to your disagreements with me, your disagreements with each other are trivial – and, you don’t want to offend anyone who shares your basic disagreements with me.

You must be new here. We have had, and will continue to have, deep disagreements with each other. Atheists share nothing except a lack of belief in gods, everything else is up for (often bad-tempered) discussion. Not everyone on this website is an atheist either. Your insistence on the shroud being the real burial cloth of Jesus is just a foolish side issue compared with some of the debates here. Honestly, this issue is really not that special or important, largely because your belief is entirely evidence-free.

5. Perhaps, my most basic guideline for myself over the past year in this regard is that in order to actually get somewhere in debate -- in order to have actually effective debate – (for persons who have really basic disagreements with each other) is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.

How's that been working out for you?

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.

So it wasn't to obfuscate the issue of the AIP™?

- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that. But if we can do that, I think that we have a real chance of eventually, but actually, getting somewhere.

OK, present your evidence for the AIP™.

- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have – and, can otherwise come up with.

Huzzah! We've been asking you to present some evidence for pages and pages and pages. Is there a good reason you've been holding back, or is it just that you have no evidence for the patch except your wish for it to be true?

If the latter, then I suggest you tell your bank manager that you really, really wish you had a million dollars in the bank. It will have the same result as your wish to have the shroud have the AIP™, that is, no effect at all.

Because reality doesn't work like that, Jabba. Reality is what the evidence shows, not what you want it to show. Reality doesn't care about what you want.

Or, to sum up, just present the blasted evidence if you have any. Stop wandering off into irrelevant byways such as the form of the debate, or whether your world view is more or less ridiculous than the average fantasy-prone person.

 

[Dinwar]

4. Anyway, it’s in the area of how “deep” the disagreement is. The rest of you guys can pretty much get past your disagreements with each other because compared to your disagreements with me, your disagreements with each other are trivial – and, you don’t want to offend anyone who shares your basic disagreements with me.

You're completely and utterly wrong.

I have no problem disagreeing with anyone here. I don't care what these folks think of me--and they shouldn't care what I think of them. Their opinions mean nothing to me, and I expect that mine mean even less to them. We are anonymous online folks. I respect certain people as authorities in certain subjects because they've proven they have the knowledge, is all. You can tell I don't care that they disagree with me because I'm an Objectivist--just look at any thread on this topic to see what this forum thinks of that!

My disagreement with you isn't very deep. It is, in fact, one of the most shallow disagreements I can think of. I disagree with you because your side contradicts the data. That's it. That's ALL of it. I came into this thread with no opinion about the age of the shroud; it was the weight of the evidence that convinced me that the shroud was a 14th century artifact.

[edit: Never mind]

We disagree with you because YOU ARE WRONG. Demonstrably wrong. And since you've been unable to do so in over a year, it's safe to say irrefutably wrong.

Once you accept that, we have a chance of actually debating this issue. But until you stop with the arm-chair psychoanalysis and ignoring the fact that we honestly believe that the evidence is overwhelmingly against your position, you've castrated your own arguments. You're committing the Straw Man Fallacy on a grand scale.

5. Perhaps, my most basic guideline for myself over the past year in this regard is that in order to actually get somewhere in debate -- in order to have actually effective debate – (for persons who have really basic disagreements with each other) is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.

The subject is as narrow as it can get: the C14 dating. You cannot maintain focus, however; you bounce from one narrow topic to another without regard for the coherency of your position.

- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that.

We aren't the ones making the argument go in circles.

- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have

So we need to obediently play by your rules, or else you won't deign to show us your evidence? Not bloody likely. If you've got it, show it. You've had a year; far as I can tell, this is just one more stall tactic designed to make us look bad for your inability to actually support your arguments.

This is science, Jabba. Put up or shut up. We've been extraordinarily patient with you, considering your behavior towards us (which have included insults, slander, and lies). It's time for you to act like an adult and either present your evidence, or admit you have none. No other option is honest.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

- Again, I suspect that
1. Human survival depends upon us humans figuring out a way for those of us who disagree with each other to carry out actually effective debate with each other.
2. This claim needs some refinement in that something about the extent of disagreement between the two parties is critical
3. But then, effectively expressing that detail is, itself, almost impossible…
4. Anyway, it’s in the area of how “deep” the disagreement is. The rest of you guys can pretty much get past your disagreements with each other because compared to your disagreements with me, your disagreements with each other are trivial – and, you don’t want to offend anyone who shares your basic disagreements with me.
5. Perhaps, my most basic guideline for myself over the past year in this regard is that in order to actually get somewhere in debate -- in order to have actually effective debate – (for persons who have really basic disagreements with each other) is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.
- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that. But if we can do that, I think that we have a real chance of eventually, but actually, getting somewhere.
- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have – and, can otherwise come up with.
- That’s the idea.

--- Jabba

Oh, Rich:

If you have evidence (evidence you have not already presented; evidence that has not already been refuted/repudiated/rebutted/rekrelnificated/resorbed/regurgitated), it is dishonest of you to say that you will present it if you get to say what the "rules" are.

Show 'em if you got 'em, Rich.

 

[wollery]

- Here’s how I see our current situation.
- Over the past several pages, I’ve been trying to deal with 6 different, but related, issues.

1. How could all three labs get the same wrong answer?
2. What’s my “evidence” for patching?
3. How could so many experts -- examining the sample area for patching – miss real signs of patching?
4. How could so many experts – examining the sample area for patching -- miss a patch large enough to affect the dating by 1300 years?
5. Carbon dating, being such an objective process, how could bias affect the results?
6. How could the area examined by Arizona, Oxford and Zurich be such a poor selection, when highly respected carbon dating scientists – including representatives of those 3 labs – selected the sample?

- I’d like to continue addressing #’s 3 and 4, but if you guys would prefer that I address one of the others first (#2, for instance), let me know.

--- Jabba

No, Jabba. You have not being dealing with anything over the last few pages.

Below is a list of every single post you have made in the last 10 pages, covering more than a week. I've removed the content for the sake of brevity, but please visit them and point out which one has added anything substantive to the debate or has, in any way, dealt with any of the issues you list above.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

All I see in those posts is explanations of why you believe certain things (which are pointless), appeals to ignorance (which are worthless), demands for the sort of evidence that you consistently fail to give (which are insulting) and multiple promises to give that evidence (which never materialises).

You have been told time and again, by almost every long-term poster in this thread, that there is only one issue - the C14 dating. In order to argue for a 1st century date for the shroud you must demonstrate a significant problem with the C14 dating. Note that this won't prove a 1st century date, merely open the possibility for it. In order to prove a 1st century date you would need to explain to the satisfaction of knowledgeable scientists exactly what was wrong with the C14 dating and why it resulted in a consistent 1300 year discrepancy. The patch theory does not do this because a 14th century patch could have been added to a 12th century cloth with the same result.

In order to cast significant doubt on the C14 dating you must do one of three things - demonstrate a significant scientific flaw in the testing procedure of all three labs, demonstrate why the sample is not representative of the greater cloth or provide tangible evidence of collusion and bias on the parts of the all of the scientists involved. If you cannot provide one of those then the C14 date stands as scientific fact.

You keep promising evidence, but it never arrives.

You've also just asked people to look at a post (without saying what it was) that rehashes your idea about a "new and improved" debating style. In my opinion the biggest hindrance to this debate is your "new and improved" debating style. It serves no purpose except to slow down effective debate (in this case to a glacial rate) and allow for evasion and misdirection.

Effective debate is easy, particularly in science - each party states their case and the party that has the facts on their side wins.

In case you hadn't noticed, you lost the effective debate more than a year ago.

 

[pakeha]

...

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.
- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that. But if we can do that, I think that we have a real chance of eventually, but actually, getting somewhere.
- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have – and, can otherwise come up with.
- That’s the idea. ...

I have the impression this is another way to say there IS no evidence to be presented that hasn't already been discussed here.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

- Again, I suspect that
1. Human survival depends upon us humans figuring out a way for those of us who disagree with each other to carry out actually effective debate with each other.
2. This claim needs some refinement in that something about the extent of disagreement between the two parties is critical
3. But then, effectively expressing that detail is, itself, almost impossible…
4. Anyway, it’s in the area of how “deep” the disagreement is. The rest of you guys can pretty much get past your disagreements with each other because compared to your disagreements with me, your disagreements with each other are trivial – and, you don’t want to offend anyone who shares your basic disagreements with me.
5. Perhaps, my most basic guideline for myself over the past year in this regard is that in order to actually get somewhere in debate -- in order to have actually effective debate – (for persons who have really basic disagreements with each other) is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.
- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that. But if we can do that, I think that we have a real chance of eventually, but actually, getting somewhere.
- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have – and, can otherwise come up with.
- That’s the idea.

--- Jabba

Deliberate, dishonest evasion

 

[Olowkow]

...is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.

To me that is a non sequitur, but I have been following this inane thread so long that it could be I have gone senile.

[lewisblack]blabubublalabbu I think it's time for a cup of joe[/lewisblack]

 

[Mister Earl]

Why is it that the religious types are the ones most comfortable with bearing false witness?

 

[Giordano]

- I wish to express something that probably doesn’t belong in this thread. If there is somewhere else more appropriate, please let me know where it is. I understand that such a request begs for sarcasm -- but I’m serious, and sarcasm won’t help.

- Again, I suspect that
1. Human survival depends upon us humans figuring out a way for those of us who disagree with each other to carry out actually effective debate with each other.
2. This claim needs some refinement in that something about the extent of disagreement between the two parties is critical
3. But then, effectively expressing that detail is, itself, almost impossible…
4. Anyway, it’s in the area of how “deep” the disagreement is. The rest of you guys can pretty much get past your disagreements with each other because compared to your disagreements with me, your disagreements with each other are trivial – and, you don’t want to offend anyone who shares your basic disagreements with me.
5. Perhaps, my most basic guideline for myself over the past year in this regard is that in order to actually get somewhere in debate -- in order to have actually effective debate – (for persons who have really basic disagreements with each other) is to keep narrowing the focus of the debate.

- That’s why I’ve morphed what you guys call one issue into several.
- I think that we will go in circles forever unless we do that. But if we can do that, I think that we have a real chance of eventually, but actually, getting somewhere.
- If we can do that, you’ll see me actually presenting what evidence I have – and, can otherwise come up with.
- That’s the idea.

--- Jabba

Jabba,

We've had an incredibly effective debate in the thread. I've learned a lot about the Shroud that I didn't know before. I finally read some of the pro-Shroud papers in detail. I read and thought carefully about every one of your posts. I realized that the pro-Shroud arguments were even weaker that i had supposed and that the anti-Shroud evidence was very strong. As a result I am now very convinced that the Shroud is a forgery.

This process functioned in exactly the way you claim you seek:both sides presented their best arguments to be considered and judged openly. What you can't accept is that your side was shown to be wrong.

I only caught your last line in your post a few seconds ago.. Are you seriously claiming to be withholding "your evidence" unless we somehow change the style of debate by "narrowing" it? There is only one question: prove the 14C dating wrong. And how will it be narrowing the question by converting this one question into five??

 

[tsig]

Why is it that the religious types are the ones most comfortable with bearing false witness?

God's on their side.