Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Discussion Format/2nd Topic
- I was waiting to be sure that carbon dating would be the majority topic. If I get one more vote for carbon dating, or no one (non-sarcastically) suggests a different direction today, I'll go with the carbon dating as the second topic.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
Because your logic could also be used to state that the results were positive for organic pigments. There is a large difference between a test being positive for something and a test being "not inconsistent with". The latter can include multiple substances and is not a positive test for any one specific source to the exclusion of all others.
This is similar to blood typing used in criminal cases. If the blood found at the scene is type A-negative, the prosecutor can correctly state that the results are not inconsistent with the suspect's blood type. The suspect could be the source of the blood. But the defense attorney would be correct to state that there are several other individuals that are also not inconsistent with the results. The blood type test is not a positive test that points only to his client. Now if the prosecution were to present DNA sequencing, then that could point to a specific person.
The test results you are referencing are akin to blood typing in a criminal case, not DNA sequencing.
*I'm sorry for using blood as a illustrative topic and hope it doesn't confuse the issue.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
I expect many will agree with me, but I would suggest not focusing on the carbon dating. If the carbon dating results could ever be shown to be incorrect, it still says nothing about the actual date of the cloth. Rather than discussing why the shroud is not 700 years old, it would be much better to show evidence that it is 2000 years old.
Okay, I've promised myself to stop posting here, but for this I will:
I vote for you addressing the carbon dating and not the blood.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
It's self explanatory. Provide some evidence that the cloth is 2000 years old.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Not necessarily carbon dating, but the age of the shroud. I know you. You'll spend months complaining about points that have been debunked 100 times, and never provide any evidence of your own supporting a 2000 year old shroud,
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
You are literally the only person here who gives a tinker's crooked stovepipe about the blood.
Everyone else here understands that the only question worth asking is "how old is the cloth?". I suspect that you understand this, too, but also understand that the answer is plainly obvious and does not support your position.
And so you dance.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
As always, Jabba: you have the burden of proof on the dating. It's not enough to show that there are problems with the carbon dating. They could have had it all wrong, but that in no way indicates that the cloth is actually 2000 years old. You have to provide actual evidence (not some guy in his kitchen, you know that doesn't fly) that the shroud not only dates to the time in question, but the location, and you need to demonstrate that the guy to whom you've tied the shroud actually existed and was buried in it.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Did the gaggles of folks stating it is utterly irrelevant not somehow give you a clue?
Are you trapped in some sort of strange Monty Python clip?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
How would the presence of any of those preclude the presence of blood? Are we somehow back to your claim that blood on the cloth suggests that it hasn't been painted?
Anyway, their absence doesn't actually suggest that there is blood present, just that there isn't any manganese, cobalt, or nickel. And it certainly doesn't make the cloth any older.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I helped my friend release seized nuts on his rear right tyre today.
Clear proof that the shroud is real.
Makes just as much sense.
Clear proof that the shroud is real.
Makes just as much sense.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Why won't you start?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
[cherrypick]Do, or do not[/cherrypick]
ETA: A plastic Yoda knows better.
ETA: A plastic Yoda knows better.
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
To prove that my sister wrote this birthday card to me, I first must prove that Chi Wang in China did not. I intend to do this next.
By the way, my final proof about my sister's card may take awhile, given the 7 billion people in the world and my need to discuss each one.
By the way, my final proof about my sister's card may take awhile, given the 7 billion people in the world and my need to discuss each one.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
No, you don't, and you couldn't even if you needed to.
No one, absolutely no one, is interested in hearing your clumsy attempts to debunk the carbon dating results again. They were nonsense before and they are nonsense now, but more than that, they are irrelevant.
What matters - and what is literally the only thing anyone here cares at all to discuss with you - is what evidence you have, if any, that the Shroud is two thousand years old.
You do not have to debunk anything to present that. Even if you can conclusively prove that the results given by carbon dating are false, you are no closer, at all, to proving that the Shroud is actually two thousand years old.
Present your evidence that the Shroud is two thousand years old or leave.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Doesn't the word "Wang" violate the MA?
- Status