Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Slowvehicle]

- Here's how I see the relevancy of what I've been doing.

<snip for focus>

- This is all relevant in that it has to do with the weaknesses that I perceive in the 10 years of the carbon dating process.

--- Jabba

Oh, Rich:

I do not want you to accuse me of being "disrespectful", but none of that is "relevant" in that you are not competent to detect, much less judge, "weaknesses" in the ¹⁴C dating process.

 

[HighRiser]

I might be an idiot, but I can't make sense of Jabba verse 15

" So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and to those representing the carbon dating labs."

Could I get a translation of this, please?

 

[Agatha]

As long as Jabba perceives "science" and the "Church" as polar opposites, he will continue to believe that there is some kind of argument where the church is agitating for a 1st century date and science for a mediaeval date. I honestly do not know how we (the majority of posters on this thread) can get Jabba to see that the Church and science have never been in opposition; both 'sides' were eager to uncover the truth about the shroud, even if that meant it relinquishing the money-making/evangelical possibilities of owning the True Burial Shroud™. There is no conflict between the church and science; both are in pursuit of the truth, no matter what it is. After the carbon dating, the shroud was confirmed as being from the 14th century, and both science and the Catholic Church accepted this. There simply is no reliable or credible evidence against the 14th century date, and there is an massive mountain range of evidence supporting the 14th century date.

Truth is more important than any amount of idols and more important than false gods, but Jabba can not, or will not, accept truth because he remains wedded to the idea that the shroud is from the first century. For Jabba, the shroud is a god in itself - despite the Bible prohibition on worshipping idols, despite the Commandment against having no other god but YHWH, and despite John 8:32.

Jabba (and other shroudies, he's by no means the only one, but he's here and the rest are not) are happy to wilfully blind themselves to every fact that conflicts with their skewed worldview. If he is not willing to accept reality, I fear that there is little or nothing that anyone can do to bring him back from the comforting fantasyland he inhabits, because he is choosing to live his whole life as a lie. Unless he is open to choosing reality instead of fantasy, nothing any of us can say or do can pull him out of the pit he has chosen.

And as it appears he now has everybody bar hughfarey on ignore, we may as well piss into the wind for all the good it will do to reply to him. He's choosing not to listen and the only people we can reach now are the lurkers.

So sad. Sad, and frustrating that a seemingly educated, literate and articulate person can choose such a fake worldview.

 

[Dinwar]

There is no conflict between the church and science; both are in pursuit of the truth, no matter what it is.

True in this instance. Let's not get carried away.

It would be strange indeed if the Church couldn't handle a venerated relic becoming exposed as a fraud. They've only had a thousand years of practice. Give me a thousand years of practice and I'll break every Olympic record out there. Plus, there was the evidence that it wasn't from the 1st century, such as a bishop claiming that it was a forgery back in the Middle Ages (discussed several times up-thread).

 

[Akri]

1) I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in. We need to keep narrowing our focus until we run out of sub-issues in the particular branch being followed. Tedious, but necessary.

I've got 189 pages of evidence that say otherwise.

2) You guys wanted me to focus on the carbon dating and why I thought it was wrong.
3) I explained that what I considered to be my primary reasons for thinking it wrong, was what I called "indirect" evidence -- the date the dating determined. I don't think it would have been possible for a 14th century artisan to have created such a piece of art (I have several reasons for thinking that).

Yes, you shared those reasons. And all of them were wrong. There is absolutely nothing that makes it impossible (or even UNLIKELY) for a 14th century artisan to create such a piece of art. Plus, as I've explained to you before (always without getting any response) it doesn't matter how unlikely it is. The C14 dating makes any other explanation completely impossible. "Unlikely" trumps "impossible".

6) I believed that one piece of reasonable doubt was provided by the sample selected. I believed that the piece selected was not representative of the greater shroud.

Unless you have evidence that it was not representative, none of the rest of these "sub-issues" matter. You can imagine as many scenarios as you want for how a non-representative sample COULD have been chosen, but unless that actually happened you're just telling stories.

9) I retraced my steps back to the almost-invisible possibility and found several sources claiming to have uncovered evidence of patching.
10) No one here seemed to accept this as serious evidence, so I figured that this was a place where I would just have to agree to disagree.

Or you could actually listen to what people are saying, and educate yourself on the relevant subjects. Just a thought.

12) I then claimed that I thought that the church selected the number and location of the sample(s), and that the scientists were basically just stuck with the Church's decision.

You claiming something doesn't make it true, and it being true doesn't make it relevant, and it being relevant doesn't making the sample non representative.

15) So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and to those representing the carbon dating labs.

Can someone explain what this sentence means?

- This is all relevant in that it has to do with the weaknesses that I perceive in the 10 years of the carbon dating process.

And yet none of it has anything to do with any actual weakness in the carbon dating process, which means it's not really relevant at all.

 

[pakeha]

....
8) The truly invisible patch seemed like a possibility until we found out that such a patch would utilize only undamaged threads from the shroud, itself, and consequently, should have no effect on the date determined.
9) I retraced my steps back to the almost-invisible possibility and found several sources claiming to have uncovered evidence of patching.
10) No one here seemed to accept this as serious evidence, so I figured that this was a place where I would just have to agree to disagree. ...

No, you don't have that option.
There is no evidence the sample is not representative of the cloth.
Those sources have been discussed repeatedly.
Ask H to explain it to you again, if need be.

True in this instance. Let's not get carried away.

It would be strange indeed if the Church couldn't handle a venerated relic becoming exposed as a fraud. They've only had a thousand years of practice. Give me a thousand years of practice and I'll break every Olympic record out there. Plus, there was the evidence that it wasn't from the 1st century, such as a bishop claiming that it was a forgery back in the Middle Ages (discussed several times up-thread).

Quite right, Dinwar.
In fact, the Vatican's unwillingness to shut down the various devotional groups dedicated to the TS and its study leads me to the conclusion that all along, what IS authentic about the TS is its undoubted powers as a money spinner.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- Here's how I see the relevancy of what I've been doing.

1) I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in. We need to keep narrowing our focus until we run out of sub-issues in the particular branch being followed. Tedious, but necessary.

No, and with as much respect as you deserve, it's a tedious, dishonest and pathetic attempt to distract.

 

[zooterkin]

- Here's how I see the relevancy of what I've been doing.

1) I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in. We need to keep narrowing our focus until we run out of sub-issues in the particular branch being followed.

What, exactly, do you think still remains to be debated? You have produced nothing which casts doubt on the 14th century date, so that rules out the piece of cloth being the burial shroud of Jesus. There isn't anywhere to get to, we've already arrived.

Tedious, but necessary.

Only half right.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
But really, the bias I've seen from labs is a desire for accuracy. They will refuse to accept samples that they don't think will provide accurate results. It makes the labs look bad, particularly after the Mt. St. Helens thing. These people don't care what the implications of their dating are--they want to make sure that the dating is right, at the cost of even doing business. I've been told "We will not take your samples" by dating labs before. I know of one lab (though I forget which one off hand) that was sent lab techs because they were screwing up and the rest of the dating labs got annoyed. It makes no sense that people who are that focused on the quality of their analysis would simply throw that entire culture out the window in order to fudge an enormously high profile sample.

This is especially important and relevant given that in th eighties AMS was a new technique, compared to counter based dating, and had given a highly inaccurate date in one comparison test in 1985 because of pre-treatment problems.

I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in. We need to keep narrowing our focus until we run out of sub-issues in the particular branch being followed. Tedious, but necessary.

No. Yet another pathetic attempt by you to control the debate.

3) I explained that what I considered to be my primary reasons for thinking it wrong, was what I called "indirect" evidence -- the date the dating determined.

Irrelevant, repetitive nonsense. You tried pushing this crap because you couldn't address the radiocarbon dating and still can't.

I don't think it would have been possible for a 14th century artisan to have created such a piece of art (I have several reasons for thinking that).

Again rubbish. The shroud has, despite your beliefs, been reproduced using medieval techniques. Further you have completely failed to support you assertion that medieval artists couldn't have created it with actual evidence.

5) I claimed that there was plenty of reasonable doubt about the validity of the overall process

You failed to support your claims with evidence and so they were rejected.

6) I believed that one piece of reasonable doubt was provided by the sample selected. I believed that the piece selected was not representative of the greater shroud.

Another unsupported assertion.

7) One possible explanation for it not being representative of the greater shroud, was that it was actually made up of a patch -- truly invisible, or invisible to the naked eye as well as to whatever study to which it was subjected prior to, and during, the dating.

Rubbish. The selected area was exhaustively examined, before, during and after the sampling. There was/is no magic patch.

9) I retraced my steps back to the almost-invisible possibility and found several sources claiming to have uncovered evidence of patching.

Lots more unsupported claims that you unquestioningly parrot.

10) No one here seemed to accept this as serious evidence, so I figured that this was a place where I would just have to agree to disagree.

Pathetic. This attempt to somehow equate evidence and expert opinion with some random claims further demonstrated your dishonesty.

11) Shortly before that time, a few of you began to claim, or imply, that the area sampled was determined by 10 years of thought and discussion, and was selected in large part by the involved scientists.
12) I then claimed that I thought that the church selected the number and location of the sample(s), and that the scientists were basically just stuck with the Church's decision.

This has been covered previously.

I might be an idiot, but I can't make sense of Jabba verse 15

" So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and to those representing the carbon dating labs."

Could I get a translation of this, please?

I'm sorry Google Translate doesn't yet support religious Gibberish.

 

[Belz...]

- Here's how I see the relevancy of what I've been doing.

1) I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in.

Which is hilarious, since most of your posts contain several bullet points that are all over the place without actually getting anywhere.

You want to zoom in ? OK. Please provide evidence that the C14 results are incorrect. And if you can't, admit that it's a medieval fake.

 

[Agatha]

I think Jabba chapter 7538 verse 15 :

So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and to those representing the carbon dating labs.

means that as long as Jabba can be assured that the scientists representing the carbon dating labs and those representing the church all agreed on the number of samples and the location, but any other scientists there (representing what I'm not quite sure) disagreed, then Jabba is happy to agree with Hugh, though I am not sure what he is agreeing with Hugh about. I'd like to think he agrees with Hugh that the TS is a 14th century artefact, but that seems such a rapid about-face from the rest of Jabba's post that it seems to me unlikely.

So, in summary:
IF carbon dating lab scientists and church scientists agreed on sample location and number
AND IF other scientists (who they?) disagreed on sample location and number
THEN Jabba agrees with Hugh about ???
ELSE Jabba disagrees with Hugh about ???

Perhaps Jabba could clarify whether that was his intended meaning.

 

[Belz...]

You forgot to close your IF statement.

 

[HighRiser]

Ahh, I think you're right, Agatha, thanks!

It was the unmentioned (unmentionable) scientists in the third undefined set that were confusing me.

 

[pgwenthold]

- This is all relevant in that it has to do with the weaknesses that I perceive in the 10 years of the carbon dating process.

This is the part I am asking you to explain, though. HOW does all what you said above result in a more recent date of the shroud?

You have asserted that the measured samples are not representative of the rest of the shroud. How do supposed "weaknesses...in the 10 years of the carbon dating process" make the sample non-representative of the shroud?

It's not enough just to claim that there was something amiss about the process, you actually have to explain how that leads to an incorrect date. For example, if you want to invoke an invisible patch, you have to explain how the sampling process that was used was more likely to result in choosing an invisible patch. If you can't, then why does it matter how it was chosen?

 

[Agatha]

You forgot to close your IF statement.

It's Jabba's logic, not mine I think an END IF will only confuse him further, unless he's a FORTRAN whizz.

Perhaps when (if) Jabba clarifies his intended meaning, we can see if more expressions are necessary before closing the statement.

 

[abaddon]

Jabba has been posting in this thread for over a year, prevaricating all the way. And he talks about respect?

 

[tsig]

It's Jabba's logic, not mine I think an END IF will only confuse him further, unless he's a FORTRAN whizz.

Perhaps when (if) Jabba clarifies his intended meaning, we can see if more expressions are necessary before closing the statement.

An endless recursive loop is very much representative of Jabbas' participation in this thread.

He's hung up in a do loop.

 

[wollery]

An endless recursive loop is very much representative of Jabbas' participation in this thread.

He's hung up in a do loop.

It seems more of a will do loop.

 

[tsig]

It seems more of a will do loop.

 

[Monza]

15) So, at this point, I think I'm ready to agree with Hugh -- so long as the scientists thought to be happy with the number and location of the sample is restricted to those 'representing' the Church and not to those representing the carbon dating labs.

Could it be that Jabba inadvertently left out the bolded word? The sentence then seems to make sense. Sense in that the sentence can be followed with respect to what he said previously, not sense in any logical meaning.