Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?

What difference does it make what compounds are found on something that is only 800 years old, when it would need to be 2000 years old to be what you would like it to be?

Zoo,
- We do have evidence that the shroud is only 800 years old. And, you may know that it's only 800 years old -- but, I don't. And, there is plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ward,

- That idea is actually central to the debate format (playing field?) I've been proposing -- except, I would have such a file on a separate webpage, and available to everyone.

- I'm surely the most memory challenged in our thread, but others here have made significant incorrect claims about previous discussion results, and need to have such a file available to them as well.

- Then, there are people just joining the discussion, or just looking in. In such written debates as this, the participants -- and followers otherwise -- need an easy way to 'add up' the current pros and cons. Here, for instance, I could use a reference to the thread where LossLeader and I were the only participants. There are references to it back in this thread -- but so far, I can't find them (For a second time!). Anyway, multiple persons have made incorrect claims about that thread -- it isn't just me with the memory problem.
- And besides, such a file should, in general, help us to develop educated opinions, and educated evaluations of those opinions.

- Hope this isn't too 'off-topic.'

You continue to casually accuse any and all of incompetence, collusion, and dishonesty.

Support this, with specific citations and links to specific posts, or withdraw it and apologize.

 

[wollery]

Jabba, for the sake of argument, let's assume the blood stains really are blood.

What's next?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slowvehicle]

Craig,
- But, by following my format, it should be much easier to show how foolish I'm being. I already have two strikes against me, and I've just begun to bat!

Ummm...no

You have "two strikes" against you in this at bat. You have been "batting" for two years and more...without a single hit. Without a single base on balls. Without a single "hit batter" OB.

Your batting performance is one of the reasons the colonials altered the rules of cricket to play "town ball".

 

[jond]

Zoo,
- We do have evidence that the shroud is only 800 years old. And, you may know that it's only 800 years old -- but, I don't. And, there is plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old.

What evidence do you have that it is 2000 years old and was the burial shroud of Jesus? You have the burden of proof here.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Thanks, Hugh.
- I had said, "It seems to me that it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood." Not too 'scholarly' -- could you give a more scholarly version of your opinion re the probability of real blood on the shroud?

It has been shown that the stains may consist of blood. I think we can pretty much agree on that.

And?

Hans

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

Do you see the difference atween what you posted, and what MRC_Hans posted?

Do you understand the significance of the difference?

 

[zooterkin]

t. And, there is plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old.

There is? Isn't it about time you produced it?

 

[Agatha]

Zoo,
- We do have evidence that the shroud is only 800 years old. And, you may know that it's only 800 years old -- but, I don't. And, there is plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old.

Really? You don't seem to have posted any of this evidence that it is more than 800 years old, which is surprising if it's as plentiful as you claim.

Mind you, any evidence you do post has to deal with those pesky carbon dating results.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hans,
- Do you think that the stains probably consist of blood?
- I'll move on to your question, and others, once I see what our consensuses(?) are. Though, Slowvehicle has first dibs.

Mr. Savage:

You have demonstrated that you do not understand, even at an informal level, the concept of "probably".

MRC_Hans used the term, "may", and, absent other evidence, it would be polite to accept the term at face value.

Given that the discolorations at issue cannot possibly have been actual human blood flowing from actual injuries inflicted on an actual human body (vice the issues of physics, adsorption/absorption, 1st Century CE funerary practices, et al.); and,

Given that the tests performed by H & A discovered, not blood, but porphyrins (a class of organic pigments); and,

Given that any red pigment available in the mid-13th Century CE would have contained poryphin-bearing organic pigments (which were the only widely available reds and browns --even umber and ochre pigments will have some porhyrins in them); then

At best, the "detection" of porphyrins in some of the discolorations on the CIQ can, at best, be said to indicate that the discolorations "MAY" indicate the presence of blood.

May. Might. Could. Maybe.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Zoo,
- We do have evidence that the shroud is only 800 years old. And, you may know that it's only 800 years old -- but, I don't. And, there is plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old.

You are drifting again.

Other than your allegations of incompetence, collusion, and outright fraud, what evidence (remember the litany: objective, physical, non-anecdotal, empirical, practical, testable evidence) have you to present that overcomes the ¹⁴C dates?

NB: your claim that Mme. F-L "must have missed" "some patching" or "some repair" is not evidence. Special pleading is not evidence. Assuming your consequent is not evidence.

You are courting an MLB 6.02 violation...

 

[Pope130]

If I may summarize. Some of the chemical evidence is consistent with blood, it is also consistent with paint which was in use at the time the cloth was made.

None of the chemical evidence is definitive for blood.

Even if the traces did indicate blood, there is nothing to show whether the blood is from a human, a non-human animal or a demi-god.

 

[John Jones]

Ward,

- That idea is actually central to the debate format (playing field?) I've been proposing -- except, I would have such a file on a separate webpage, and available to everyone.

- I'm surely the most memory challenged in our thread, but others here have made significant incorrect claims about previous discussion results, and need to have such a file available to them as well.
- Then, there are people just joining the discussion, or just looking in. In such written debates as this, the participants -- and followers otherwise -- need an easy way to 'add up' the current pros and cons. Here, for instance, I could use a reference to the thread where LossLeader and I were the only participants. There are references to it back in this thread -- but so far, I can't find them (For a second time!). Anyway, multiple persons have made incorrect claims about that thread -- it isn't just me with the memory problem.
- And besides, such a file should, in general, help us to develop educated opinions, and educated evaluations of those opinions.

- Hope this isn't too 'off-topic.'

This forum already allows people to do all that you propose, and you alone can't seem to take advantage of it. Indeed, you have to have elementary concepts explained to you repeatedly, and are frequently asking people to look things up for you. This forum and the cyber world in general are not in need of your proposed improvements

 

[John Jones]

Zoo,
- We do have evidence that the shroud is only 800 years old. And, you may know that it's only 800 years old -- but, I don't. And, there is plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old.

Let's see some. And don't trot-out that ray rogers vanillin degradation deceased equine again.

 

[Slowvehicle]

If I may summarize. Some of the chemical evidence is consistent with blood, it is also consistent with paint which was in use at the time the cloth was made.

None of the chemical evidence is definitive for blood.

Even if the traces did indicate blood, there is nothing to show whether the blood is from a human, a non-human animal or a demi-god.

 

[Mojo]

- We do have evidence that the shroud is only 800 years old. And, you may know that it's only 800 years old -- but, I don't. And, there is plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old.

Such as?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- That idea is actually central to the debate format (playing field?) I've been proposing -- except, I would have such a file on a separate webpage, and available to everyone.

It's been 2 and a half years. What steps have you made towards creating this page? What notes have you taken at all?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If I may summarize. Some of the chemical evidence is consistent with blood, it is also consistent with paint which was in use at the time the cloth was made.

None of the chemical evidence is definitive for blood.

Or, to put it another way, if I may: Let's say that we had a sandwich which went missing. There were two candidates for who took the sandwich - a dog and a cat. We do some forensic analysis of the scene and we get evidence that it was an animal that was responsible.

Jabba - is this evidence that it was a cat?

No?

Then the fact that there is evidence that the composition of the "blood stains" could be blood or paint is not evidence that they are blood.

 

[Giordano]

- Thanks, Hugh.
- I had said, "It seems to me that it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood." Not too 'scholarly' -- could you give a more scholarly version of your opinion re the probability of real blood on the shroud?

This is one of the key problems here: you read this account, and you conclude for it that "it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood." This is not what it says at all; you have concocted a interpretation that isn't there to verify a conclusion that you already had made.

Please re-read the very account you quote: it clearly states that it has not been proven that the stains are blood: they can be pigment or they could be blood according to Hugh, whose views probably are the most sympathetic to yours of any person here. Many aspects indicate that they are pigment, but even if they are blood: as noted here many times, they have all the characteristics of blood painted onto the cloth. There are other "even if" aspects to my objection (even if blood, and even if bled from a fresh body, and even if 30 AD, there is no proof that it is Christ's blood...) but lets not confuse you by changing the subject.

I would also point out that Hugh leans strongly (am I being fair) to the conclusion that the Shroud is not authentic. Why do you cite him as verification of your views in some cases, but ignore his overall conclusion?

 

[Craig4]

- Pointing out what you claim to be errors!

I'm sorry, I guess I missed where the point where your objections to the C14 dating became reasonable.

 

[Giordano]

Zoo,
- We do have evidence that the shroud is only 800 years old. And, you may know that it's only 800 years old -- but, I don't. And, there is plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old.

I know you don't, but that is not the point of this thread (if it is, I think that you got that part across and can stop now).

But I'll bite: what exactly is this "plenty of other evidence that it is more than 800 years old?" And to save some time and frustration, please do not repost the "evidence" that you previously posted and which was strongly debunked. please provide novel evidence that, unlike the old, doesn't have huge holes in it. Or reasons that the prior debunkings were not accurate. Thanks.