Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Slowvehicle]

Clearly, if the test results had come back with a 2000 year-old age for the cloth, C14 testing would have been shown to be accurate. It's only because Jabba already knows the date of the cloth that he's been able to show up the flaws in C14 testing. Or something.

And that, of course, is the problem. The ¹⁴C dating must be "wrong", because it returned the "wrong" date...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Monza,
- Thank you.
- The purpose was to try to determine the age of the linen making up the shroud.

Dear Mr. savage:

Thank you.

In that light, suppose you read, and respond to (substantively), this:http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/

 

[Lucian]

Zoo,

- I'll try to deal with both of your Q/Cs here.

- If someone wants me to read their posts, they shouldn't start off with an insult.
- If I respond at all, I'll only deal with the insult.
- Unfortunately, you started off with an insult in this post -- you implied that I was either stupid or deliberately 'screwing with' you guys. I suspect that I'm not stupid -- and, I know that I'm not screwing with you guys. Do you really believe that I am either stupid or just screwing with you guys?
- In this particular case, I simply do not believe that my evidence has been comprehensively dismantled...

- I do sort of scan through the different posts, looking for ones I can respond to quickly.
- I also look for issues that I haven't tried to deal with already.
- And finally, if someone poses only one Q/C -- and, it isn't insulting -- I'll give it extra consideration.
- Actually, you're pretty good re that latter -- and, notice that I do respond to you fairly often...
- Would you consider being my "favoured poster" for awhile?

- Note that you guys keep claiming that my debate strategy doesn't work -- even though you don't let me implement it. Whoever has taken the lead hasn't played by my rules...

'

Jabba,

I respond to only your first bullet point. Sometimes I read the rest; sometimes, I don't. Consequently, this post has nothing substantive to respond to.

 

[turingtest]

That Jabba thinks that debate, with strategy, is a proper way to deal with the question is the problem; as with the similar creationist tactic against evolution, the goal shifts, in his favor, from providing positive evidence for a position to resolve the question to a mere matter of nitpicking to prolong it.

In that sense, Jabba's strategy has been entirely successful; people are playing his game.

 

[Belz...]

Jabba,

I respond to only your first bullet point. Sometimes I read the rest; sometimes, I don't. Consequently, this post has nothing substantive to respond to.

What a beautiful way to hoist Jabba on his own petard.

I suggest we all do exactly as Lucian suggests from now on.

 

[John Jones]

That Jabba thinks that debate, with strategy, is a proper way to deal with the question is the problem; as with the similar creationist tactic against evolution, the goal shifts, in his favor, from providing positive evidence for a position to resolve the question to a mere matter of nitpicking to prolong it.

In that sense, Jabba's strategy has been entirely successful; people are playing his game.

Except his stated goal way back was to convince some lurking jury that the CIQ is authentic. Not only has this not worked, his strategy seems to have the opposite effect.

 

[Mojo]

Whoever has taken the lead hasn't played by my rules...

Jabba,
- There is nobody "taking the lead"; the choice of "favoured poster" is made by you, not anyone else. If you are choosing posters who don't follow your rules, then that's your problem.
- That said, there is no reason that anyone here should have to play by your rules. The rules here are the ones set out in the membership agreement.

 

[Humots]

OK, let's make this clear, because it can be a bit confusing, and anyhow I'm sure Jabba will latch on to it sooner or later:

The statistical math refers to the confidence of the test result. It means that there is a 95% probability that the real age of the fabric is within the stated age range, in this case AD1260 - AD1390. In the remaining 5% possibilities it might be somewhat outside that range, but the odds against it being over a thousand years outside the range are astronomical.

The whole idea of doing such a test, and an absolute prerequisite for reporting such a result is that the sample must be representative. You cannot determine this with mathematics, all you can do is choose the sample location with care.

Thus, the position (but not the size) of the samples is indeed the weakest spot of the C14 test, and if I were to advice Jabba on anything other than to forget about this and get a life, it would be to try to attack the confidence of the samples.

This is, however, also a hopeless task; the sample site was carefully decided on by people with relevant expertice, the sampling was carefully documented, and since it left holes in the shroud, it could easily be re-examined. Furthermore, none of the persons involved had any motivation to not make the samples as representative as possible.

Hans

I'm curious. How does performing the C14 test three times and getting the same or overlapping results affect the odds?

Does it mean that after the three separate tests, the remaining probability of a date somewhat outside the range is now 5% X 5% X 5% = .0125%?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

I respond to only your first bullet point. Sometimes I read the rest; sometimes, I don't. Consequently, this post has nothing substantive to respond to.

Why go that far? I've decided to not respond at all. At least not until Jabba posts something, anything novel.

 

[Christian Klippel]

- If someone wants me to read their posts, they shouldn't start off with an insult.

Here's an idea: Maybe you should just stop to insult other people's intelligence. Then you would likely get different reactions.

- In this particular case, I simply do not believe that my evidence has been comprehensively dismantled...

Thing is, you have not provided any evidence at all. This is why he wrote 'evidence' instead of evidence.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Jabba]

Discussion Format

Jabba,
- There is nobody "taking the lead"; the choice of "favoured poster" is made by you, not anyone else. If you are choosing posters who don't follow your rules, then that's your problem.
- That said, there is no reason that anyone here should have to play by your rules. The rules here are the ones set out in the membership agreement.

- Clearly, no one has to play by my rules.
- But if you want empirical evidence that my way doesn't work, someone needs to actually play by my rules for awhile.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Clearly, no one has to play by my rules.
- But if you want empirical evidence that my way doesn't work, someone needs to actually play by my rules for awhile.

Oh for Pete's sake.

You actually got the Mods to give you an ultra-special thread where everyone followed your inane "Rules for Effective Debate" nonsense and in it you produced the exact same level of intellectual material that you have in this 3 year long, 6 part death spiral, which is to say absolutely none.

You need to stop operating under the delusions that the problem is the rest of us just aren't following your rules.

 

[Mojo]

- Clearly, no one has to play by my rules.
- But if you want empirical evidence that my way doesn't work, someone needs to actually play by my rules for awhile.

That's already been done, remember?

 

[Belz...]

- Clearly, no one has to play by my rules.
- But if you want empirical evidence that my way doesn't work, someone needs to actually play by my rules for awhile.

To the first point: True.

There is nothing else to address, of course, since we now only address your first point, as well.

 

[Craig4]

- Clearly, no one has to play by my rules.
- But if you want empirical evidence that my way doesn't work, someone needs to actually play by my rules for awhile.

How about you just support your claims and no one need be bothered by you little effective debate thing?

 

[SezMe]

Is there any reason why we should respond to your posts at all, if you're not even going read those from your currently favoured poster?

NO. It's that simple.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've got an idea.

Hey Jabba why don't you step down for a while and let someone else be the "Favoured Poster" for your side of the argument?

Find someone, anyone, else that supports your argument, and let them be the designated spokesman for a while.

This idea that you get to argue with a continued succession of one-on-one people but we have to keep arguing only with you seems a bit unfair.

 

[SezMe]

What a beautiful way to hoist Jabba on his own petard.

I suggest we all do exactly as Lucian suggests from now on.

Why go that far? I've decided to not respond at all. At least not until Jabba posts something, anything novel.

Giordano's approach is much, much better. We know Jabba is no longer trustworthy, no longer reliable, that he is uninformed, impervious to new information, unwilling to explore contradictory ideas, thinks we have to play by his rules, repeats himself endlessly and, finally, is a liar

You wouldn't put up with such a person in real life, why here?

Just ignore him completely.​

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- Thank you.
- The purpose was to try to determine the age of the linen making up the shroud.

Jabba,

Thank you for your reply.

As you say, the testing was done to determine the age of the linen that makes up the shroud. So it was clear from the start that the sample taken was representative of the shroud (the very purpose of the sample). You conceded this point some time ago when you realized that the banding visible only under UV spectrometry passed unaltered through the sample region. So we know that this area was created during the original weaving of the shroud.*

If the linen can be no older ~1200 AD and it has been part of the shroud since it was first on the loom... what conclusion can be drawn?



* Additional information

 

[John Jones]

I'll be back.