Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- I don't understand how that disagrees with what I just said...
Click to expand...

Let's say I have an empty pie dish. Now, an empty pie dish is not inconsistent with a pie that was once in it having been eaten. It's also not inconsistent with a pie that was once in it having been dropped on the floor. It's also not inconsistent with there never having been a pie in it but it instead being a dish bought empty from a shop.

Tell me, Jabba, is the fact that the pie dish is empty positive evidence that it once contained a pie which has subsequently been eaten?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Let's say I have an empty pie dish. Now, an empty pie dish is not inconsistent with a pie that was once in it having been eaten. It's also not inconsistent with a pie that was once in it having been dropped on the floor. It's also not inconsistent with there never having been a pie in it but it instead being a dish bought empty from a shop.

Tell me, Jabba, is the fact that the pie dish is empty positive evidence that it once contained a pie which has subsequently been eaten?
Click to expand...
Nope, Jabba wants to eat his ethereal master every Sunday. Yes, it's bizarre whichever way you slice it (pun intended)

Furthermore, Jabba wants to claim that blood did not exist for thousands of years. You will have to ask him about that. Personally, I think that claim is bonkers.
 
Jabba said:
- I tell you what -- I'll try to compromise. Let there be two lines of conjecture!
1) Are the stains blood? And,
2) The most popular topic otherwise. (I'd suggest either carbon dating, or the relevance of blood.)

- Whatever, I can only do one of your choices. I'll try to give your choice as much time as my own.
Click to expand...

- I was waiting to be sure that carbon dating would be the majority topic.
Click to expand...

Are you still trying to 'frame' the debate after all this time ? Time to answer the question, Jabba:

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?
 
Jabba said:
- To explain why I think that the shroud is 2000 years old, I need to start with the weakness I perceive in the carbon dating.
- That's what I'll do.
Click to expand...

If that were true it would have happened by now. So, now you should either provide evidence for such a claim or admit your attachment to the possibly bloody table cloth you're so enthralled with is irrational.
 
Jabba said:
- I don't understand how that disagrees with what I just said...
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? At all?

You are saying, in essence, that, since the tests H & A ran identified substances that are also found in blood, even though every one of those substances have other, common, sources, the tests "demonstrate" the presence of blood.

The reality is that the H & A tests did not rule out the presence of blood. That is the strongest inference that can be reached. The tests also did not rule out organic, porphyrin-bearing pigments in egg white binders (for instance).

Further, the H & A testing does not even begin to address the results of the most-scrutinized bit of 14C testing ever, where three different labs using three different protocols dated the linen to the mid-12th Century CE.

Nor have you even begun to justify your...odd...idea that, were there demonstrated to be human blood on the CIQ, that blood would somehow make a 780-year-old artifact more likely to have interacted with a human body in the 1st Century CE.

To say nothing of all the other problems I have routinely listed for you.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Are you still trying to 'frame' the debate after all this time ? Time to answer the question, Jabba:

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?
Click to expand...

One minor edit: the cloth was displayed, AND in a rather spectacular disaster. Fires are not the neatest of all events, and people often end up bleeding (it's hard to see through smoke, and panic makes you do really stupid things).

So the challange is for Jabba to not merely show that the cloth had blood on it, but that the blood and cloth are the same age.

This is, of course, after he addresses the age issue.
 
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

Why not, instead, as a myriad have suggested, simply present your evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?
 
Slowvehicle said:
Why not, instead, as a myriad have suggested, simply present your evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?
Click to expand...

I'm going to go ahead and hazard a guess here. Jabba, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't believe Jabba differentiates between criticizing the C14 dating and proving that the CIQ is 2ka. I believe that to him, calling the C14 dating into question IS proving that the CIQ is 2ka. It is not, to him, a matter of supporting his beliefs; rather, it's a matter of casting doubt on other conclusions, and declaring victory by default--ie, "You can't explain everything, therefore my answer is right." You see a LOT of this in debates with Creationists.
 
Jabba said:
- To explain why I think that the shroud is 2000 years old, I need to start with the weakness I perceive in the carbon dating.
- That's what I'll do.
Click to expand...

No.

Again I say thee nay.

You are making the same mistake creationists make when they pretend that finding a single "flaw" in the TOE "proves" ID.

You have made it pellucid that you have no scruples about accusing experts, specialists, and scientists of fraud, dishonesty, stupidity, incompetence, and collusion. Frankly, you do not need to do that again.

What you need to do, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, for two years and more, is present your evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old. Start with the evidence, instead of your conclusion that you assumed before you even looked for evidence.

Start with the evidence.
 
Giordano said:
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.
Click to expand...

Chi Wan cooks with spring onions in his chou mien. Why does your sister date such a rapscallion?
 
Slowvehicle said:
We had huevos rancheros three time last week, at the demesne. Clear proof that the CIQ contains the image of 'Squatch.
Click to expand...

Fie upon you, I say FIE. I spent this very day shooting partridges from the back of deer on my six million acre tidy lawn.

Clearly, this is evidence that the shroud is the very first Christmas bauble of bovine fecal matter.

Or I could be wrong. Or making it up.

Out of whole cloth.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Why not, instead, as a myriad have suggested, simply present your evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?
Click to expand...


This bears repeating: Jabba, it's not enough for you to complain about the 14C dating - you need to provide evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

Please don't waste another two years dodging that issue.
 
Dinwar said:
I'm going to go ahead and hazard a guess here. Jabba, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't believe Jabba differentiates between criticizing the C14 dating and proving that the CIQ is 2ka. I believe that to him, calling the C14 dating into question IS proving that the CIQ is 2ka. It is not, to him, a matter of supporting his beliefs; rather, it's a matter of casting doubt on other conclusions, and declaring victory by default--ie, "You can't explain everything, therefore my answer is right." You see a LOT of this in debates with Creationists.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that you are correct, but it's fallacious logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom