Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Marduk]

I'm still curious to understand how anyone would think that the 6'1 nordic type on the shroud is supposed to have been a native of the middle east 2000 years ago (average height 5'1), does it say in the bible somewhere that Jesus was a giant who didn't look like any of his contemporaries, or is the transformation something that happens after death, so only white nordic types can enter heaven. Does Whitney Houston currently have blond hair and blue eyes ?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I thought you had a website dedicated to the subject. Doesn't that have links to sources?

Squeegee,

- Yeah. Look in http://messiahornot.com/Bibliography.php. The references beginning at 99 are all about the Shroud. From 110 to 158, I try to indicate something about the content...
- In my thinking, I use a lot of articles from the Barrie Schwortz website (http://shroud.com/) -- some of which are not listed in my bibliography.
- I must admit that my age has been, and is, a problem. It causes me to be in a constant hurry, and my memory ain't what it used to be.
- I now wish that I had been much more careful about my bibliography.

- My other website is stuck on hold until I can find a willing opponent. Unfortunately, my "team" has essentially abandoned me for 'sunnier' shores (apparently, they have more pressing needs to address), so I'll also need to recruit some more help...

--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But then, the only peer-reviewed anti-authenticity articles of which I know are the 1989 Carbon Dating one in Nature and two by McCrone (can't remember where in a hurry, and these might have been one article just in different Journals -- one of them being in Italian).

- Eventually, I'll learn to slow down.
- From http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin:
Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: The Microscope 28, p. 105, 115 (1980); The Microscope 29, p. 19 (1981); Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.
- But remember, however "peer-reviewed" The Microscope was, it was McCrone's own journal, and one has to wonder just how peer-reviewed it was in regard to his own articles -- especially back in 80 and 81.
--- Jabba

[Ladewig]

Or we could talk about dimensions, distortions, and proportional exaggerations that indicate that it is not an actual image of a man who once lived.

[catsmate1]

Or someone could understand there is little interest in the scientific community in studying the shroud, especially given the definitive previous work and the lack of valid rebuttal from the believers. There's really nothing to say, especially given the refusal of the religious owners of the cloth to allow further independent testing.
But then I doubt someone understands how science works.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But remember, however "peer-reviewed" The Microscope was, it was McCrone's own journal, and one has to wonder just how peer-reviewed it was in regard to his own articles -- especially back in 80 and 81.
--- Jabba

I note than in your, rather pathetic, attempt to cast doubt on McCrone (not on his analysis) you neglect to include the other journals that published his analysis........

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Or we could talk about dimensions, distortions, and proportional exaggerations that indicate that it is not an actual image of a man who once lived.

Nah, why let facts intrude.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Marduk

I'm still curious to understand how anyone would think that the 6'1 nordic type on the shroud is supposed to have been a native of the middle east 2000 years ago (average height 5'1), does it say in the bible somewhere that Jesus was a giant who didn't look like any of his contemporaries, or is the transformation something that happens after death, so only white nordic types can enter heaven. Does Whitney Houston currently have blond hair and blue eyes ?

Marduk,
- Agreed. Good question. I have read some answers, and not everyone agrees that the person was 6'1 -- some claim he was more like 5'10.
- Whatever, said person would be pretty large for his time ... a piece of evidence against authenticity.
- Hopefully, I'll eventually get a chance to track down what the pro-authentic researchers say.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

I note than in your, rather pathetic, attempt to cast doubt on McCrone (not on his analysis) you neglect to include the other journals that published his analysis........

Catsmate,
- Were these analyses about the Shroud?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

-- but so far, I think that my sources (at least) are much more credible and objective than are those of the other side...

Jabba

Gold medal for the most deluded and incomprehensible remark of the year (even in the make-believe world of Christian fundamentalists lol) .

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Or someone could understand there is little interest in the scientific community in studying the shroud, especially given the definitive previous work and the lack of valid rebuttal from the believers. There's really nothing to say, especially given the refusal of the religious owners of the cloth to allow further independent testing.
But then I doubt someone understands how science works.

Catsmate,
- From my understanding, there have been all sorts of scientific interest in the Shroud. For instance, from Wikipedia:
Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery. A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. According to former Nature editor Philip Ball, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling".[6] The shroud is one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial.[7][8]

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by IanS

Gold medal for the most deluded and incomprehensible remark of the year (even in the make-believe world of Christian fundamentalists lol) .

IanS,
- Give me your sources; I'm collecting mine.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Marduk,
- Agreed. Good question. I have read some answers, and not everyone agrees that the person was 6'1 -- some claim he was more like 5'10.
- Whatever, said person would be pretty large for his time ... a piece of evidence against authenticity.
- Hopefully, I'll eventually get a chance to track down what the pro-authentic researchers say.
--- Jabba

Jesus is actually described in the bible, he doesn't look like Jaques de Molay (the shroud image does) and is described as average height. Why do we need scientific testing when eyes would suffice. At the end of the day, had the carbon results confirmed that the shroud dated to the time Jesus lived, it still wouldn't prove it was his, the sheet has no real provenence. This is the reason that the church historically gave its approval to icons and relics in the first place, to bolster faith. The church you see is apparently already convinced that Jesus was a real person, they've got a lot riding on it

theres a rather long thread here which might have some handy references
http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/...57181&t=257181

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

IanS,
- Give me your sources; I'm collecting mine.

Damon, P. E.; Donahue, D. J.; Gore, B. H.; Hatheway, A. L.; Jull, A. J. T.; Linick, T. W.; Sercel, P. J.; Toolin, L. J.; Bronk, C. R.; Hall, E. T.; Hedges, R. E. M.; Housley, R.; Law, I. A.; Perry, C.; Bonani, G.; Trumbore, S.; Woelfi, W.; Ambers, J. C.; Bowman, S. G. E.; Lesse, M. N. Tite, M. S. — Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature 1989, 337, 611-615

Obvioulsy!

Did you order a $5 copy of Gove's book yet? No? Why not?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Catsmate,
- Were these analyses about the Shroud?

Oh good grief.
Sigh.
McCrone published more than oner paper, in more than one journal, about his Shroud analysis. You own quote indicated this. Have you read them?
I didn't think so.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Catsmate,
- From my understanding, there have been all sorts of scientific interest in the Shroud. For instance, from Wikipedia:
Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery. A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. According to former Nature editor Philip Ball, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling".[6] The shroud is one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial.[7][8]

Is this supposed to prove something?
Popular magazines wish to make sales, hence they publish filler. Serious journals don't. Hence the paucity of articles.
Interestingly Ball also repeats the lie that the shroud hasn't been duplicated, sloppy research or bias I wonder.

Of course none of your nonsense in any way detracts from the reliability of the radiocarbon dating, the textile analysis, the lack of historical "paper trail" (except as a fake) et cetera.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I'm starting to think that I should put Paladin's request on the back burner again (Sorry again, Paladin), and deal with the issue of bias and credibility of publications by the two sides. Most everyone here is questioning the motivation and credibility of me and my sources -- but so far, I think that my sources (at least) are much more credible and objective than are those of the other side...

As I also told others in this thread, I think you are the one to decide how/what. And I agree that you should focus on the C14 in this thread as it would quickly invalidate the shroud as an artefact.

If you are in a spot of time that gives you more elbow room, we can start a new thread discussing on the authentication of religious artefacts.
I am quite interested in how it would work that people really accept something as being handed down by someone or other through the ages.

[Leumas]

Jabba,

You still have not responded to my question to you.

Even if every analysis and test and deductions proving the shroud to be a hoax are 100% wrong… even if all of them are totally dismissed….. What makes you think that it then proves that the shroud is Jesus' or was from 33AD?

And if you claim that there is no miracle.....then how was it made. Shrouds wrapped around normal humans in the normal action of entombing them, do not leave photographic negative images on the cloth. Isn't the claim of the shroudists that there was an imprinting on the shroud due to the resurrection action which caused a very bright light to emanate from Jesus and thus burn the image on the shroud?

How is that not a miracle? How would you account for the image if not by a miracle?

You are being UTTERLY disingenuous and naive.

If you claim the shroud is Jesus' then by that claim you are ALSO claiming it is miraculous and there is no way around that.

And even if we were to grant you for the sake of argument that all and every evidence against the shroud is dismissible and invalid...you still have not proven that it is from 33AD let alone from the tomb of Jesus.

If I give you a trunk and told you to guess what is inside it....but I also told you it is not an apple.....on what bases would you then be utterly and unwaveringly convinced that it is a frog?

If you can't apply the normal logic that you apply everyday to be able to function in daily life to the situation of the shroud then you have to just admit to yourself that wishful thinking and geographical and religious and cultural biases are utterly blinding for you and you are incapable of thinking straight when it comes to judging anything relating to this subject.

The only genuine and sensible thing to do in this situation is to say that you have no idea (given that you reject the science data) and that until you get other evidence then you must take it to be a hoax until proven otherwise given the proclivity of humans to fake things throughout history and given the tendency for humans to lie and sham and hoax and obfuscate and given the amount of skullduggery in this life and the number of mountebanks and brigands....even the popes were for generations utter corrupt grifters.

So given no evidence to the positive and plenty of evidence to the negative (despite you rejecting it with mental gymnastics and pirouettes around the facts) the only SANE and HONEST conclusion is to assume a sham based on the past history of human beings in general and most people involved in religions in particular and the dubious shameful history of iconography.


Any other arguments you might make are just a waste of time. Come back when there is an evidence proving it to be from 33AD Israel and we would then argue about it whether it is Jesus' even given that fact.

You have no case whatsoever and you know it. Any claim to the contrary is either irrational or dishonest.


Have a look at this web page....here is an excerpt

Quote:

Almost two centuries before that basilica was constructed underground, the Neopythagoreans at Rome made a remarkable effort to increase their influence or, perhaps, disseminate their faith. Two stone chests, about eight feet long and four feet wide, were carefully made, sealed with molten lead, adorned with incised inscriptions in both Latin and Greek, and buried in a spot where a farmer, ploughing more deeply than usual, would find them. One of the chests was, according to the inscription, the coffin of Numa Pompilius, the legendary successor of Romulus and second King of Rome, who, according to tradition, had established the official religion of Rome. That chest was empty, doubtless on the theory that Numa, having been a pious prophet, had ascended to Heaven to join his divine relatives. The other chest contained seven books in Latin and seven in Greek, written by Numa to describe the true structure of the universe, as it had been revealed to him by Pythagoras, and the true religion, which he had established at Rome and which, as everyone who read his holy books could see, differed enormously from the corrupted and perverted practices of the time at which the farmer, perhaps by divine instigation, had uncovered the chests. Precisely what Numa’s precious words ordained, and what political purposes lay behind them, we do not know,* any more than we know to what ethnic groups most of the members of the Pythagorean lodges at Rome belonged. Numa’s books, by the way, had been perfectly preserved, because he had taken the precaution of saturating the papyrus with oil of cedar to preserve them through the centuries.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by IanS

Damon, P. E.; Donahue, D. J.; Gore, B. H.; Hatheway, A. L.; Jull, A. J. T.; Linick, T. W.; Sercel, P. J.; Toolin, L. J.; Bronk, C. R.; Hall, E. T.; Hedges, R. E. M.; Housley, R.; Law, I. A.; Perry, C.; Bonani, G.; Trumbore, S.; Woelfi, W.; Ambers, J. C.; Bowman, S. G. E.; Lesse, M. N. Tite, M. S. — Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature 1989, 337, 611-615

Obvioulsy!

Did you order a $5 copy of Gove's book yet? No? Why not?

IanS,
- "Sources" might have been the wrong word. What articles, other than the one in Nature are you basing your conclusions upon?
- And, I have ordered the book -- used. Unfortunately, the Kindle version cost about $45!
--- Jabba

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

...- I can't address everything at once, and when I try to give a few quick answers, I accumulate a multitude of new objections to address... Maybe there is a logical order of what issues should be addressed when -- and right now, I'm thinking that the credibility of our sources might be the right place to begin. ...

I think something more to the point would be more interesting.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

... we could talk about dimensions, distortions, and proportional exaggerations that indicate that it is not an actual image of a man who once lived.

Jabba, how about this as a starting point?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

IanS,
- "Sources" might have been the wrong word. What articles, other than the one in Nature are you basing your conclusions upon?
- And, I have ordered the book -- used. Unfortunately, the Kindle version cost about $45!
--- Jabba

Well at risk of appearing to negate my own advice - I would not have paid $45 for it! If I were you I'd cancel that order ASAP - just order a used paper copy from Amazon for $5.

Jabba, how many times do people here need to say this - it is quite useless for you, me, or anyone else to be reading what you call "articles" presented on religious propaganda sites like those shroud websites.

Those shroud sites are the equivalent of, and produced by essentially the same people, who have filled the internet with creationist websites denying evolution. You are talking about sites and "articles" produced by Christian fundamentals who have no concern whatsoever for telling the truth about anything ... their purpose is not to tell the truth about the shroud or about creationism ... it's to persuade gullible people to join their Christian evangelical cause by broadcasting those same fundamentalist religious beliefs all over the internet to anyone and everyone that will listen to them.

If you are going to produce "articles" from which to obtain your information on the shroud, then you must restrict that to articles which are genuinely independent and scientifically accurate. Otherwise you might as well be quoting from a Dan Dare comic ... really, it's as stark and pathetic as that.

However, what you should have learned by now from this thread is that there has only ever been one really high-level scientifically valid investigation of the Shroud (because the Vatican flatly refuses to allow further scientific tests), and that was the C14 done in 1988.

There is nothing else. That's it ... just the C14.

But the C14 is more than enough. The C14 shows absolutely conclusively that as far as anyone can honestly tell, the Shroud dates to the 14th cent.

Until you, or any shroud believers can overturn that result, that really is the end of the story.

You could still have an interesting discussion, and even proper scientific investigations, trying to decide such things as how the image was formed etc. But as far as the date is concerned … the shroud is 14th century and therefore cannot be the 5AD burial shroud of Jesus.

[IanS]

Jabba - can I just get a better idea of your overall Christian views -

Do you believe in creationism?

How old do you think the Earth is?

[Craig B]

Jabba

IanS is right. Here it is again.

Quote:

However, what you should have learned by now from this thread is that there has only ever been one really high-level scientifically valid investigation of the Shroud (because the Vatican flatly refuses to allow further scientific tests), and that was the C14 done in 1988.

There is nothing else. That's it ... just the C14.

But the C14 is more than enough. The C14 shows absolutely conclusively that as far as anyone can honestly tell, the Shroud dates to the 14th cent.

Until you, or any shroud believers can overturn that result, that really is the end of the story ...

If you think the test is wrong, there's nothing for it but to perform further tests. Do you disagree with that reasoning? If the Pope or his advisers think the test is wrong, what stops them from having another one done? If you think the doctor's diagnosis was wrong, you get the tests done again, of course.

So why aren't the Shroudies clamouring for this?

You know why, don't you?

[Rincewind]

I'm afraid I fail so see the point of this thread.

It's been pointed out that the image has distortions where none should appear (hands/arms), and none where there ought to be some (head/face).

Surely it makes no sense to continue?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Jabba

1) IanS is right. Here it is again. If you think the test is wrong, there's nothing for it but to perform further tests. Do you disagree with that reasoning?
2) If the Pope or his advisers think the test is wrong, what stops them from having another one done?
3) If you think the doctor's diagnosis was wrong, you get the tests done again, of course.

4) So why aren't the Shroudies clamouring for this?

5) You know why, don't you?

Craig,

- I can't help myself... I have to try to answer these little questions.
- The trouble is that it would require a lot of time to dig up the evidence for my claims -- so for now, I'll have to provide my claims without any evidence for them...
- If I could focus on one issue at a time, you would see whether I have the goods (the evidence) or not.
- Is there any way for you guys to vote on which question or objection I should focus upon?

- I counted the number of different posters (other than me) on the last two pages -- most of them requiring or deserving responses – and, I got 20.
- Then, on one of those pages, I divided the posts into what I considered different subtopics, and got 13. 14 posts on one of the subtopics; 7 on another; 4 on another; 3 on 2; 2 on 1; and 1, on the rest. The subtopic wit 14 references was the one about the credibility of my sources.
- If I ever feel like I can devote the time, I’ll try to name and describe each (a few pages back, Ladewig had asked me to do that in general).

- Anyway,
- Re #1: Yes -- I disagree. My claim is that there is all sorts of evidence out there that supports A) a much earlier date, and also B) weakness in the carbon dating.
- Re #2: They have two reasons: A) They are afraid that further testing might show the same results -- and they would rather have a "maybe real" shroud than a "clearly fake" shroud, and they don't want to risk the latter. B) If the Shroud is real, they sincerely don't want to further “desecrate” it.
- Re #3: Yeah -- unless, A) the testing requires another operation, B) you do think the first Dr was wrong and 3) you'd rather go on thinking he was wrong than risking the knowledge that he was right. In this case, a- smart-friend-telling-you-that-he-thinks-you-have-Alzheimer’s seems somewhat analogous (if you believe that there isn’t anything significant that can be done anyway).
- Re #4: They (we) have pretty much given up -- though recently (at least), some knowledgeable devotees have suggested ways that they say would cause little or no "desecration"…
- Re #5: Yes – see above.

--- Jabba

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Anyway,
- Re #1: Yes -- I disagree. My claim is that there is all sorts of evidence out there that supports A) a much earlier date, and also B) weakness in the carbon dating.

Well you have been asked for that at least a dozen times, and you have failed to produce any such thing.

Where is this evidence that you claim shows " A) a much earlier date, and also B) weakness in the carbon dating. " ....

... make absolutely SURE that what you present as " evidence " is from a properly qualified independent scientist and verified in the genuine scientific research literature -

-- be quite sure that it's absolutely useless for you to keep presenting "articles" from religious propaganda “shroud-believers” websites.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by IanS

Well you have been asked for that at least a dozen times, and you have failed to produce any such thing.

Where is this evidence that you claim shows " A) a much earlier date, and also B) weakness in the carbon dating. " ....

... make absolutely SURE that what you present as " evidence " is from a properly qualified independent scientist and verified in the genuine scientific research literature -

-- be quite sure that it's absolutely useless for you to keep presenting "articles" from religious propaganda “shroud-believers” websites.

I am doubtful that Jabba and the JREF posters will ever reach consensus on the definition of "peer-reviewed evidence produced by fair, accurate, knowledgeable, objective, independent sources." That's why I suggested distortions and perspectives as an alternative topic.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I am doubtful that Jabba and the JREF posters will ever reach consensus on the definition of "peer-reviewed evidence produced by fair, accurate, knowledgeable, objective, independent sources." That's why I suggested distortions and perspectives as an alternative topic.

It's not difficult - what is vs. what is not genuine scientific research peer-reviewed literature is well known in the world of science, and nobody disagrees about which journals qualify.

The only other consideration is that preferably the author of the paper should not be a member of a well known creationist group or a well known religious shroud group who after years have trying, has finally fooled an editor into letting a thinly veiled religious paper slip through.

But if Jabba insists, then I'm happy to drop that restriction on genuine authors, and accept anyone who has published in any of the universally recognised science research journals.

IOW - all you have to do is to provide any reference to a genuine research journal (there is one such paper of course ... we already discussed it earlier).

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Re #1: Yes -- I disagree. My claim is that there is all sorts of evidence out there that supports A) a much earlier date, and also B) weakness in the carbon dating.
- Re #2: They have two reasons: A) They are afraid that further testing might show the same results -- and they would rather have a "maybe real" shroud than a "clearly fake" shroud, and they don't want to risk the latter. B) If the Shroud is real, they sincerely don't want to further “desecrate” it.
- Re #3: Yeah -- unless, A) the testing requires another operation, B) you do think the first Dr was wrong and 3) you'd rather go on thinking he was wrong than risking the knowledge that he was right. In this case, a- smart-friend-telling-you-that-he-thinks-you-have-Alzheimer’s seems somewhat analogous (if you believe that there isn’t anything significant that can be done anyway).
- Re #4: They (we) have pretty much given up -- though recently (at least), some knowledgeable devotees have suggested ways that they say would cause little or no "desecration"…
- Re #5: Yes – see above.

And how does any of that prove that it is not say from Zeus or Thor (the image looks a lot more like them) even if we were to grant you all of it just for the sake of the argument?

How does any of that lead you to conclude that it is from 33AD and that it is Jesus'?

How in the name of sanity and rational thinking is it possible to conclude that something is a cat just because it is not a chicken?

Do you see how faulty your reasoning abilities are? If an object is not an elephant it does not then follow that since it is not an elephant that it must be a car...... this is called FLOWED REASONING.

How in the world given all the above does it then follow that it is the shroud that was wrapped around a man-god who raped and committed incest, pedophilia and adultery with his mother just so that he can give birth to himself as his own son so as to give himself as a bloody human sacrifice to himself so as to appease himself from a sin no one committed but through his repeated and chronic inability to impress anyone along with utter lack of learning from his past mistakes as indicated by multiple epic failures?


How does it follow that if the shroud is not from circa 1200 AD that it is then from 33AD and if it is from 33AD that it is Jesus'?

You my friend have a case here of epic failure in logical and rational thinking as Jesus exhibited when according to the myth, he decided that it is a lot easier to enact a farce of pretending to die and get resurrected 33 years after he committed incest and adultery with his 13 years old mother just so that he can convince himself to forgive the world from a 4000 years old GRUDGE he was holding when he could have just decided to forgive it just like that without all the need for such amazingly dramatic ostentations and fanfare that only a handful of people supposedly witnessed and even those failed to acknowledge it..... and fail and need a mulligan to do it all again with even more hullabaloo and rivers of blood and oodles of suffering and gnashing of teeth and wailing.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

I'm afraid I fail so see the point of this thread.

It's been pointed out that the image has distortions where none should appear (hands/arms), and none where there ought to be some (head/face).

Surely it makes no sense to continue?

No, not really. But then why continue to argue with any wooster.
And don't forget all the points against the authenticity of the cloth; their sum is even greater.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Re #2: They have two reasons: A) They are afraid that further testing might show the same results -- and they would rather have a "maybe real" shroud than a "clearly fake" shroud, and they don't want to risk the latter. B) If the Shroud is real, they sincerely don't want to further “desecrate” it.

Excellent….. so you are admitting that wishful thinking is all there is to it.

If I told you here is a pound of gold….give me $100 and it is all yours…. Would you hand over the $100 and go home happy clappy with your thoughts that you just fleeced me and never test the gold because you would rather not know if it is real gold or not because ….. how did you put it….

you would rather have a "maybe real" pound of gold than a "clearly fake" pound of gold, and you don't want to risk the latter.

Do you really not see the abject failure in reasoning here?

Do you really not see that all this is a clear case of wishful thinking and biased "reasoning" due to the hope for holding on to anything that might alleviate the cognitive dissonance Christians in the 21^st century must be suffering because they are beginning to glean the hucksterism they have been subjected to by generations of foppish grifters?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I counted the number of different posters (other than me) on the last two pages -- most of them requiring or deserving responses – and, I got 20.
- Then, on one of those pages, I divided the posts into what I considered different subtopics, and got 13. 14 posts on one of the subtopics; 7 on another; 4 on another; 3 on 2; 2 on 1; and 1, on the rest. The subtopic wit 14 references was the one about the credibility of my sources.
- If I ever feel like I can devote the time, I’ll try to name and describe each (a few pages back, Ladewig had asked me to do that in general).

- Anyway,
- Re #1: Yes -- I disagree. My claim is that there is all sorts of evidence out there that supports A) a much earlier date, and also B) weakness in the carbon dating.
- Re #2: They have two reasons: A) They are afraid that further testing might show the same results -- and they would rather have a "maybe real" shroud than a "clearly fake" shroud, and they don't want to risk the latter. B) If the Shroud is real, they sincerely don't want to further “desecrate” it.
- Re #3: Yeah -- unless, A) the testing requires another operation, B) you do think the first Dr was wrong and 3) you'd rather go on thinking he was wrong than risking the knowledge that he was right. In this case, a- smart-friend-telling-you-that-he-thinks-you-have-Alzheimer’s seems somewhat analogous (if you believe that there isn’t anything significant that can be done anyway).
- Re #4: They (we) have pretty much given up -- though recently (at least), some knowledgeable devotees have suggested ways that they say would cause little or no "desecration"…
- Re #5: Yes – see above.

--- Jabba

You have repeatedly claimed that "there is all sorts of evidence" that the shroud existed prior to 1354 and that "there is all sorts of evidence" of flaws in the radiocarbon dating; you have supplied none that stood up to examination.
Nor have you demonstrated the veracity of your claims that:

1. Walter McCrone's microscopic analysis of the shroud fibres was flawed or without value in establishing it's origin
2. blood was found on the shroud
3. the shroud cannot be recreated today either with the full gamut of modern technology or with accurate simulations of medieval technology
4. the image on the shroud is anatomically correct for it claimed origin and different from religious art contemporaneous to its first known existence
5. the cloth of the shroud is of first century middle eastern origin
6. the appearance of the shroud matches biblical texts

In fact 3 has been shown several times to be a lie, albeit one oft repeated by believers.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

No, not really. But then why continue to argue with any wooster.
And don't forget all the points against the authenticity of the cloth; their sum is even greater.

Indeed.

I just wanted to point out that if the image couldn't be of a real human, then the authenticity of the cloth is irrelevant.

But you're correct - the sum of the evidence is impressive.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

You have repeatedly claimed that "there is all sorts of evidence" that the shroud existed prior to 1354 and that "there is all sorts of evidence" of flaws in the radiocarbon dating; you have supplied none that stood up to examination.
Nor have you demonstrated the veracity of your claims that:

1. Walter McCrone's microscopic analysis of the shroud fibres was flawed or without value in establishing it's origin
2. blood was found on the shroud
3. the shroud cannot be recreated today either with the full gamut of modern technology or with accurate simulations of medieval technology
4. the image on the shroud is anatomically correct for it claimed origin and different from religious art contemporaneous to its first known existence
5. the cloth of the shroud is of first century middle eastern origin
6. the appearance of the shroud matches biblical texts

In fact 3 has been shown several times to be a lie, albeit one oft repeated by believers.

I agree with every part of this post.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

You have repeatedly claimed that "there is all sorts of evidence" that the shroud existed prior to 1354 and that "there is all sorts of evidence" of flaws in the radiocarbon dating; you have supplied none that stood up to examination.
Nor have you demonstrated the veracity of your claims that:

1. Walter McCrone's microscopic analysis of the shroud fibres was flawed or without value in establishing it's origin
2. blood was found on the shroud
3. the shroud cannot be recreated today either with the full gamut of modern technology or with accurate simulations of medieval technology
4. the image on the shroud is anatomically correct for it claimed origin and different from religious art contemporaneous to its first known existence
5. the cloth of the shroud is of first century middle eastern origin
6. the appearance of the shroud matches biblical texts

In fact 3 has been shown several times to be a lie, albeit one oft repeated by believers.

Indeed.

At this point it is difficult to conclude that Jabba is being 100% honest with us.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Craig,

- I can't help myself... I have to try to answer these little questions.
- The trouble is that it would require a lot of time to dig up the evidence for my claims -- so for now, I'll have to provide my claims without any evidence for them...
- If I could focus on one issue at a time, you would see whether I have the goods (the evidence) or not.
- Is there any way for you guys to vote on which question or objection I should focus upon?

- I counted the number of different posters (other than me) on the last two pages -- most of them requiring or deserving responses – and, I got 20.
- Then, on one of those pages, I divided the posts into what I considered different subtopics, and got 13. 14 posts on one of the subtopics; 7 on another; 4 on another; 3 on 2; 2 on 1; and 1, on the rest. The subtopic wit 14 references was the one about the credibility of my sources.
- If I ever feel like I can devote the time, I’ll try to name and describe each (a few pages back, Ladewig had asked me to do that in general).

- Anyway,
- Re #1: Yes -- I disagree. My claim is that there is all sorts of evidence out there that supports A) a much earlier date, and also B) weakness in the carbon dating.
- Re #2: They have two reasons: A) They are afraid that further testing might show the same results -- and they would rather have a "maybe real" shroud than a "clearly fake" shroud, and they don't want to risk the latter. B) If the Shroud is real, they sincerely don't want to further “desecrate” it.
- Re #3: Yeah -- unless, A) the testing requires another operation, B) you do think the first Dr was wrong and 3) you'd rather go on thinking he was wrong than risking the knowledge that he was right. In this case, a- smart-friend-telling-you-that-he-thinks-you-have-Alzheimer’s seems somewhat analogous (if you believe that there isn’t anything significant that can be done anyway).
- Re #4: They (we) have pretty much given up -- though recently (at least), some knowledgeable devotees have suggested ways that they say would cause little or no "desecration"…
- Re #5: Yes – see above.

--- Jabba

IOW they'd rather keep fleecing the gullible.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by IanS

Jabba - can I just get a better idea of your overall Christian views -

Do you believe in creationism?

How old do you think the Earth is?

IanS,

- First, I'm only a wannabe Christian. I tend to believe in prophecy and that Jesus actually was the prophesied messiah. I would like to fully believe -- but so far, I don't.

- In general, I do believe in transcendence -- a non-physical, a-causal dimension of reality. Transcendence seems to be sensed (or imagined) only by the holistic hemisphere of the human brain, and is not readily "perceived" by humans dominated by their analytic hemisphere.
- I believe that life does have ultimate meaning and that we do have free will -- however illogical those concepts are. I think that what we call "love" satisfies the human need for meaning.

- I don't believe in Creationism, but I do suspect that Darwin was missing something important... I'll leave it at that for now.
- The earth is probably almost 5 billion years old.

--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by IanS

It's not difficult - what is vs. what is not genuine scientific research peer-reviewed literature is well known in the world of science, and nobody disagrees about which journals qualify.

IanS,
- I don't understand how you can say that after my reference to to the Allday article, and all the different obvious issues regarding "peer-review."
--- Jabba

[Jeff Corey]

There's no such thing as a "holistic hemisphere" or "analytic hemisphere", for starters. That's a pop psychology myth.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba#332

IanS,
- Give me your sources; I'm collecting mine.

Originally Posted by IanS#334

Damon, P. E.; Donahue, D. J.; Gore, B. H.; Hatheway, A. L.; Jull, A. J. T.; Linick, T. W.; Sercel, P. J.; Toolin, L. J.; Bronk, C. R.; Hall, E. T.; Hedges, R. E. M.; Housley, R.; Law, I. A.; Perry, C.; Bonani, G.; Trumbore, S.; Woelfi, W.; Ambers, J. C.; Bowman, S. G. E.; Lesse, M. N. Tite, M. S. — Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature 1989, 337, 611-615

Originally Posted by Jabba

IanS,
- "Sources" might have been the wrong word. What articles, other than the one in Nature are you basing your conclusions upon?

- Can someone save me some time and remind me of the articles to which you guys have already referred, and also any articles you rely on that haven't been mentioned? I have the Nickell article and the three McCrone articles. To what other articles are you referring?
- I'll provide my list of basic pro-authenticity articles as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

There's no such thing as a "holistic hemisphere" or "analytic hemisphere", for starters. That's a pop psychology myth.

Jeff,
- Can you refer me to a confirming article?
--- Jabba