Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[aleCcowaN]

Jabba's shows that the art of saving farts in wicker baskets requires of permanent acts of replenishment.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- In our case, both sides claim that the other side is seriously biased...
- For starters, just go to Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin and Relic, Icon or Hoax. They are both full of animosity and intrigue.

Jabba, I do not claim you are biased, I claim that you have NO EVIDENCE. All you present is speculation.

You are trying to put our positions equal, but you cannot. There is EVIDENCE for the 14th century dating of the shroud. There is none for the 1st century hypothesis.

This is not a case of belief or whatever quarrels there might have been. Three independent professional laboratories tested the samples and put their names on reports dating it to the 14th century.

If you think of accusing them of scientific fraud, be aware that this amounts to libel and in theory, you might face legal action (although I expect they will ignore you).

Hans

 

[jond]

Jabba, I do not claim you are biased, I claim that you have NO EVIDENCE. All you present is speculation.

You are trying to put our positions equal, but you cannot. There is EVIDENCE for the 14th century dating of the shroud. There is none for the 1st century hypothesis.

This is not a case of belief or whatever quarrels there might have been. Three independent professional laboratories tested the samples and put their names on reports dating it to the 14th century.

If you think of accusing them of scientific fraud, be aware that this amounts to libel and in theory, you might face legal action (although I expect they will ignore you).

Hans

It might also be reasonable to expect Jabba to back up his assertion with specifics as to how the scientists' bias could have altered the tests in such a way as to present the date they did. And since he currently will only respond to you, I just thought I'd throw it out there...

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- In our case, both sides claim that the other side is seriously biased...
- For starters, just go to Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin and Relic, Icon or Hoax. They are both full of animosity and intrigue.

One 'side' in this discussion provides evidence. The other side provides logical fallacies, slurs, lies, and repeatedly debunked nonsense.

Guess which 'side' has the more compelling depiction of the reality of things?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Allow me to elaborate on this Jabba, because you seem to not quite understand what you are up against (although heaven knows it has been made clear repeatedly). So, very simply put:

There are several items of evidence dating the shroud to the 14th century:

The C14 dating.

The historical evidence.

The fact that the weave of the fabric is typical for the time.

Then there is some corroborative evidence; while not suggesting any specific dating, it supports the notion that the shroud is a fabrication (i.e. not an actual burial shroud):

Impossible anatomical details.

No wrap-around effect.

Incompatible with 1st century Jewish burial traditions.

Now, for you to attack all this evidence, you will have to produce either:

1) Solid evidence that the above items are factually wrong.

or

2) Solid evidence dating the shroud to the 1st century.

#1 will not prove that the shroud is authentic, but at least that its origin is, after all debatable.

#2 will not prove that it is tha actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ, but may, if strong enough, motivate a re-examination of the evidence.

Your only other possibility is to accept that your conviction is purely belief-based, and simply live with that.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

It might also be reasonable to expect Jabba to back up his assertion with specifics as to how the scientists' bias could have altered the tests in such a way as to present the date they did. And since he currently will only respond to you, I just thought I'd throw it out there...

And the only way this could happen would be fraud. ... Which makes no sense at all: If the labs really were so eager to land this prestigious task, they would be insane to fake the result. ESPECIALLY since each knew that two other labs would also be making the tests.

Hans

 

[jond]

And the only way this could happen would be fraud. ... Which makes no sense at all: If the labs really were so eager to land this prestigious task, they would be insane to fake the result. ESPECIALLY since each knew that two other labs would also be making the tests.

Hans

Yup. Which Jabba will somehow read as evidence of fraud and collusion! Anything to keep his desperate belief alive.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yup. Which Jabba will somehow read as evidence of fraud and collusion! Anything to keep his desperate belief alive.

Possibly. I am not counting on being able to save Jabba. Only to make it hard for him to confuse others.

Hans

 

[abaddon]

Jabba,

Do you accept the authenticity of all of the claimed nails of the cross? Because I can name at least eight, and they cannot all be authentic.

By the same token, do you reject the authenticity of the other four claimants to be the the shroud of jesus?

Furthermore, why do you think your attempted victimisation of Hans furthers your cause in any way? Everyone can see your dishonest tactics and you cannot hide. Why do you do it?

Finally, it matters not a whit to your faith if the CIQ is a fake. Christianity is replete with fakes. Doesn't seem to bother most christians, so why does it bother you?

 

[Craig4]

Hans,
- In our case, both sides claim that the other side is seriously biased...
- For starters, just go to Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin and Relic, Icon or Hoax. They are both full of animosity and intrigue.

Wait, this is it? All the cases you have to answer, claims you need to support and this is it? Nothing about what an archeologist was supposed to add to the carbon dating process or the absence and presence of iron? Yon just throw a non sequitur up and leave?

It's okay, I know why you did this. It's because deep down, you know there is not evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud. Now that you've demonstrated that you know there is no evidence, why then do you stick to your unsupported conclusion?

 

[John Jones]

Wait, this is it? All the cases you have to answer, claims you need to support and this is it? Nothing about what an archeologist was supposed to add to the carbon dating process or the absence and presence of iron? Yon just throw a non sequitur up and leave?

It's okay, I know why you did this. It's because deep down, you know there is not evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud. Now that you've demonstrated that you know there is no evidence, why then do you stick to your unsupported conclusion?

He's actually answered this before: It's because he wants to believe in the Resurrection and thus in his own shot at immortality.

Why he keeps regurgitating his foul, impotent, and discredited arguments is another matter.

 

[abaddon]

He's actually answered this before: It's because he wants to believe in the Resurrection and thus in his own shot at immortality.

Why he keeps regurgitating his foul, impotent, and discredited arguments is another matter.

Way back in part one, this was done to death. This is a fringe fringe reset.

And an abject refusal to learn about how science actually works.

ETA: And a scurrilous and baseless accusation against scientists.

 

[turingtest]

...and yet, one "side" uses a well-honed approach specifically designed to deal with, and minimize the effects of, such bias in pursuit of evidence-based conclusions; while the other has demonstrated the willingness to make all manner of false and unsupported claims in pursuit of pre-adopted conclusion-filtered bits of cherry-picked (even mutually exclusive) "evidence".

You have yet to demonstrate how your accusations of dishonesty and incompetence would have affected three different machines in three independent protocols; causing them to come up with the same "wrong" answer.

Do you have anything that is not calumny?

Will you rudely ignore this post, also?

That line of mine in your sig, about cutting the mountains down, seems to fit here. Jabba's tried carrying the Shroud to the top of Science Mountain; the failure is evident, so the only alternative is to try to tear the mountain down.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Emotionality

Jabba, I do not claim you are biased, I claim that you have NO EVIDENCE. All you present is speculation...

Hans,
- I was making two claims in one: there was a lot of emotionality involved in those 10 years of preparation; and, emotionality could have affected the reliability of the results.
- So first: do you accept that there was a lot of emotionality involved?

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- I was making two claims in one: there was a lot of emotionality involved in those 10 years of preparation; and, emotionality could have affected the reliability of the results.
- So first: do you accept that there was a lot of emotionality involved?

What, no evidence of anything? Just innuendo and empty assertion?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

It's not authentic for cripes sakes!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hans,
- I was making two claims in one: there was a lot of emotionality involved in those 10 years of preparation; and, emotionality could have affected the reliability of the results.
- So first: do you accept that there was a lot of emotionality involved?

Good Evening, Mr. Savage.

You appear to continue to mistake wrestling with alligators for draining the swamp...

 

[Humots]

Hans,
- I was making two claims in one: there was a lot of emotionality involved in those 10 years of preparation; and, emotionality could have affected the reliability of the results.
- So first: do you accept that there was a lot of emotionality involved?

Your reference to "emotionality" is one more not-so-subtle slander of the scientists providing the evidence against authenticity of the CIS.

Jabba: do you accept that there is a lot of "emotionality" involved on your side, and that could be affecting your reliability?

 

[Mashuna]

Hans,
- I was making two claims in one: there was a lot of emotionality involved in those 10 years of preparation; and, emotionality could have affected the reliability of the results.
- So first: do you accept that there was a lot of emotionality involved?

I see no evidence for it.

 

[Rincewind]

I see no evidence for it.

 

[aleCcowaN]

And now for the only bit in Jabba's post that is not chaff:

What? He won't be back?