Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Once again Jabba, all this talk about blood is a side show. You can talk about the blood until the cows come home, and perish, and their barn collapses and rots away into the soil, and it still won't change the fact the shroud has been proven--as far as it is possible to prove--to have been manufactured in the Middle Ages.

What part of the phrase medieval artefact do you not understand?
 
Slowvehicle said:
<snipped> Strike twelve.
Click to expand...


This really was a great post. I'd have nominated it if I hadn't been beaten to it.

Jabba, can you admit that the shroud has never been properly tested for the presence of blood? If not, how do you respond to these twelve separate points?
 
Loss Leader said:
This really was a great post. I'd have nominated it if I hadn't been beaten to it.

Jabba, can you admit that the shroud has never been properly tested for the presence of blood? If not, how do you respond to these twelve separate points?
Click to expand...

You are both too kind.

For Mr. Savage's sake, I would like to point out, very clearly, that what I posted does not "prove" that there is NOT human blood on the CIQ; it does, however, demonstrate that it has not, in any way or to any extent, been "demonstrated" that there IS human blood on the CIQ.

To say nothing of there being blood in condition to test for antibodies, or to use for DNA testing.
 
Blood

Slowvehicle said:
Good morning, Mr. Savage.

Among the things you are missing is that "peer-reviewed" does not mean "correct", but "adhering to minimal standards such that it is at least worth publishing".

At any rate, let's look at the clams, above.

1. X-ray fluorescence can,in fact, detect the presence of iron. However, iron is not blood, nor is blood the only substance that contains iron. In fact, cloths stained with blood, clay, and rust all show positive x-ray fluorescence for the presence of iron.

In other words, test for iron detects iron.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...ectrometry/links/0912f5084243d04b3e000000.pdf

Strike one...
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,
- Wow!
- Would you mind if I presented your answers over on the Porter blog, and asked for their help?
 
Jabba said:
- If anyone is interested, the very beginning of my attempt to map can be found at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189. I'm sure it will give you a good laugh.
Click to expand...

As defender of authenticity, I make two main claims: 1) The overall evidence minus the carbon dating supports authenticity, and 2) The carbon dating evidence is not sufficient to justify ignoring the other evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I laughed.
 
The overall evidence minus the carbon dating supports authenticity
Click to expand...

Yet, despite repeated requests, he has never actually provided ANY evidence that it is the first century burial cloth of Jesus. So far, the only thing that has been even suggested is the projection that everyone agrees there's blood on it. Which a) isn't true (the issue of blood is certainly not agreed upon by everyone), and 2) even if there was blood, so? How does that show it is the first century burial cloth of Jesus?

And this is the ONLY evidence that has been advanced for it being "authentic".

Nonpareil said:
Yeah, I laughed.
Click to expand...

For good reason
 
Jabba said:
- If anyone is interested, the very beginning of my attempt to map can be found at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=189. I'm sure it will give you a good laugh.
Click to expand...

Jabba,

That page is a mess of gross misrepresentation of years of posts in this very thread and it's predecessor and everything you have been told here by pretty much everyone.

You couldn't manage to make a hyperlink in the very first paragraph back to this very thread. Intentionally or not, I can't tell.

You strawmanned what you claimed was the consensus about blood on the CIQ was. The consensus here is that it is an irrelevancy, not the nonsense you posted.

You then proceed to handwave away the C14 evidence on the basis of arguments which have been roundly debunked right here.

To cap it all, you place some unattributed quotes from here complete with borked tags making them unreadable.

It's a fiasco of a page.
 
Loss Leader said:
It's so much simpler to debate when you get to be in charge of both sides.
Click to expand...
Oddly, based on his website, it is still possible to loss the debate even when you are in charge of both sides.

But again I have no reason to try to get Jabba to believe differently from how he does- that is his right and there are a lot of other people also wrong on the Internet. I even extend this live-and-let-live belief to his website, and I encourage him to focus presenting his views on it as a type of advertisement and hobby. But if he still intends to post here on the ISF, then he can assume that his incorrect views will be rebutted with the facts.
 
zooterkin said:
How about you present the evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old over here, instead?
Click to expand...

Now, now, to have effective debate we need to use his system, I think. I mean he says there's a system but I'm a little hazy on what it is. Well, I mean I have no idea what the system is except I know he's not supposed to present any evidence. That much is clear; to be effective debate under no circumstances can Jabba produce any evidence. Oh and he has to throw out lots of lists on topics that are at best ancillary, otherwise the debate is not effective. It's important to have effective debate don't you know.
 
Craig4 said:
Now, now, to have effective debate we need to use his system, I think. I mean he says there's a system but I'm a little hazy on what it is. Well, I mean I have no idea what the system is except I know he's not supposed to present any evidence. That much is clear; to be effective debate under no circumstances can Jabba produce any evidence. Oh and he has to throw out lots of lists on topics that are at best ancillary, otherwise the debate is not effective. It's important to have effective debate don't you know.
Click to expand...

At which point in the process do you just project your beliefs on everyone else and claim there is a consensus?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom