Craig,
- You can use the standard system everywhere else in this forum. Here, I'm trying to insert a different, developmental, experimental, cooperative system.
Good Morning, Mr. Savage.
How is it that you feel that you can call your "system" co-operative, when it (apparently) consits of you linking to articles you have not read, and do not understand; then
claiming that those articles support your assumed consequesnt while ignoring any and all actual evidence?
- Probably, the basic idea in my attempted system is that everything has to be extremely slowed down -- such issues as the shroud are extremely complicated, exponential, and cannot be effectively rushed.
The issue of the CIQ is only "complicated" to those whose devotion to authenticity is not in any way supported by any fact.
Look (for instance) at the
14C dating. Three different labs, using different protocols, arrived at a mid-12th Century CE date for the cloth (in what has been called the most scrutinized piece of
14C dating, ever). The fact that you, personally, do not
like that date does not call the dating into question, If anything, it calls into question your ability, and willingness, to deal with facts that cannot be wedged into your assumed consequent, that is, your perfervid wish that the CIQ were, in fact, the
True ShroudTM.
Nor does it make sense to label pointing out that you are rehashing claims already addressed in this thread and its progenitor, over more than two years, as "rushed".
- It turns out that I (still) think that the stains are blood
Based upon what evidence? You have yet to address the fact, multiply demonstrated, that the H & A paper does not indicate the presence of blood on the CIQ. At best, the tests listed can be used to indicate the presence of substances that are not inconsistent with the presence of human blood.
You "think the stains are blood because you
wish the CIQ were "authentic". Not because there is evidence to support your belief.
That is the very nature of the problem with assuming your consequent.
-- and further, that if they are blood, that the likelihood that the shroud is authentic
In what way would the presence of a substance present in the veins of every human on the 780-year-old CIQ indicate that the CIQ was anything other than a manifestly medieval votary object that is recorded to have been exposed to the public for veneration?
-- and, 2000 years old -- is significantly increased.
In what way would the presence of human blood on the CIQ address, or refute,
in any conceivable manner the
14C date?
Seriously: you have yet to answer this question: How would the presence of blood, on a piece of cloth that was displayed to the public for veneration, indicate, or even
suggest a date for the manufacture of the cloth?
This would be another good place for you to clearly present your evidence that the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old. You have yet to do so. You have yet to even attempt to do so. You
claim that there is "lots of evidence"; suppose you produce this evidence now.
To effectively support -- or just evaluate -- these beliefs requires a kind of microscopic look, which is time-consuming and tedious.
A "microscopic look" is not required. A cursory glance demonstrates that the image on the CIQ
-is anatomically ludicrous
-is posturally impossible
-does not conform to either the scriptural account or 1st Century CE funerary practices
-does not conform to the behavior of actual fluids.
To say nothing of the apparent fact that the image is rendered on the sized and gessoed surface of a 780-year-old piece of linen.
- Maybe, this analogy will work. It's like what you guys are calling "evidence" are only the tips of little pyramids -- the tips require underpinning.
All right. Underpin away. Deal with the clearly visible fact that the image on the CIQ leaves no room for the top of an actual head-shaped head. Is it your contention that the
Son of Man© was shaped like a chisel? How does the anatomical absurdity of the image support "authenticity"?
What you, personally, want to call evidence, most honest disputants recognize as special pleading.
- So now, I'll try to go back and develop the underpinning of my belief that the stains are blood.
Not just "blood". You do have the
onus of demonstrating that there is, in fact, human blood on the CIQ. You
also have the
onus to demonstrate (as per your claims) that the "blood" has been:
-type-matched to be "Mediterranean"
-genotyped to be "Xx"
-and, lest you claim to have stolen home by a "concealed ball" gambit, that the "blood" is 2000 years old (on a 780-year-old-piece of linen).
Do you ever intend to address any of the issues with the H & A "blood tests"?
