Rincewind
Philosopher
Whatever else Jabba has been doing, I admit to a LOL moment with "a real live, dead body".
So - thanks Jabba!
So - thanks Jabba!
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nonsense. We understand you perfectly. We DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference.Jabba said:
Than you have nothing.
This isn't circumstantial evidence. This is nothing. Dead bodies were not uncommon in the Middle Ages, as has been pointed out to you. Therefore whether it's an imprint of a dead body or not cannot, in any way, tell us anything about the age of the shroud. There is no logical connection between your evidence and your conclusion.
The rest of your arguments are similar nonsense. There is no logical connection between what you call evidence (never mind that it's been so thoroughly refuted that to call it such is flagrantly dishonest...) and your conclusion. This is not due to any lack of understanding on our part--it is due to deep flaws in your arguments. When asked to correct them, you scramble to change the subject.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Hugh,
- Nobody understands me!
- Try this.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that the shroud is an imprint of a real live, dead body is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that the shroud is 2000 years old -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that the shroud is an imprint of a real live dead body...
- If that passes muster with you, I'll go on and try to further explain what I'm trying to do here.
Real live dead body... That's pretty funny!
Since the image on the cloth is primarily what you keep coming back to, and since the image on the cloth is not consistent with what's expected from laying a person on it and folding it over them, why don't you address those inconsistencies that have been pointed out repeatedly in these threads?
Start with the most glaringly obvious issue that there's no room for the top of the head between the dorsal and frontal images.
I don't think I understand: exactly what you are trying to say?Hugh,
- Nobody understands me!
- Try this.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that the shroud is an imprint of a real live, dead body is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that the shroud is 2000 years old -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that the shroud is an imprint of a real live dead body...
- If that passes muster with you, I'll go on and try to further explain what I'm trying to do here.
Just kidding. Again, we do understand you. But we just think that you are wrong. It is you who refuse to understand this point.
Okay, you do agree that you have no direct evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old: then you should just quit this thread now. You can remain a believer in the Shroud, but your goal of convincing others has failed; in fact you have achieved the opposite! I am more aware of the direct evidence that the Shroud is not authentic from reading this thread than I was before.
You appear to use the term "circumstantial evidence" a lot, but very little of what you call evidence is indeed evidence at all, even circumstantial evidence. Almost all of it represents attempts by believers to create subliminal doubts in the direct scientific evidence, often based on special pleading, absurd scenarios, undocumented conspiracies, selective quoting of the primary literature, etc.
Carbon dating is wrong for authenticity? "Perhaps it was contamination, or caused by an earthquake, or a conspiracy of those no-good scientists, or resurrection energy!" None of these is evidence or is based on any established facts (even circumstantial) and in fact there are solid facts that disprove each of these attempts at rebutting the carbon dating (amount of contamination required, multiple independent labs, including one who ashed the sample first to avoid any ability to identify Shroud from control, etc.).
The list goes on and on. Just accept it: you don't have any evidence, circumstantial or direct. Even people initially sympathetic to your conclusion of authenticity now believe the Shroud is not authentic. Your entire argument is based on assuming the antecedent: "the Shroud must be authentic, so the carbon date must be wrong- let me see, how might that be possible.... etc."
You previously expressed the same dilemma on your reincarnation thread: everyone here just doesn't understand you. Given this lack of understanding appears to be a universal trait among the many other posters in these threads, and has not been corrected after multiple years of you trying to explain yourself, what would you conclude? We might all be very dense. Or you might be having significant troubles in communication on multiple topics, in which case simply repeating your prior statements but just louder is unlikely to work now (I found this to be true in my dreadful attempts to communicate in French). Perhaps instead, as we repeatedly claim, we do understand you but your arguments are unconvincing and your conclusion, in our view, is wrong. But really, I don't mind if you remain convinced. If you simply say, "The Shroud is magic so anything about it is possible," then I can't argue with you at all. But if you continue to try to convince me, then expect me and others to question your logic and facts.
Last edited:
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Hugh,
- Nobody understands me!
- Try this.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that the shroud is an imprint of a real live, dead body is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that the shroud is 2000 years old -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that the shroud is an imprint of a real live dead body...
- If that passes muster with you, I'll go on and try to further explain what I'm trying to do here.
I realize that you're ignoring everyone else besides Hugh. I also realize that it has never once entered your mind that you are wrong, but now might be a good time to consider it.
1. I really don't know if Jabba has most everyone else on "official" ignore status or not- I suspect it is sort-of a subjective ignore status: he sees the post but doesn't bother to answer it (or perhaps even to read it). Time is precious you know.
2. Jabba has stated that he needs the Shroud to be real to help confirm his own faith in Christianity, so in a sense he does worry that he might be wrong. Yet somehow that appears to translate to a need to convince others that the Shroud is authentic. So I think that Jabba has thought that he might be wrong, but can't accept that thought and is seeking the affirmation of others to overcome his own doubts. "Psychiatrical consultation: 5 cents."
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
The doctor is real in!
It could have been wonderful:
"In spite of the fact that there is nothing indicating that the Rag of Turin should be anything but a medieval fake, thousands of catholics gathered in a celebration of human denial of facts and general gullibility.
The pope acknowledges the economic value for the church, and did his best not to disappoint them."
That reads like a story in The Daily Mash, Peter.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
But there is direct evidence that the shroud is about 700 years old.
What circumstantial evidence do you have that the shroud is 2000 years old?
That is has blood and not paint? Blood has been available as an artistic medium for hundreds of thousands of years.
That the picture is of a crucified body? Since the birth of the Jesus myth, the crucifixion has been well known in the west. At any time, a person could have recreated the look of wounds suffered in such a way. Jim Caviezal did so to much note in a movie. Is Jim Caviezal god? Of course not. Anyone could have done the same.
That it has contaminants that could be found in the middle east? People have been traveling between the middle east and Europe for thousands of years. And that's assuming the contaminants could not be found anywhere else - they can.
That all these things are true at once? That might be somewhat persuasive if it were impossible to entertain the concept of people faking a relic. Unfortunately, we have documented history that people in the middle ages were in the business of faking relics. It was literally a career path. Hell, people are still counterfeiting relics.
In this case, the circumstantial evidence you provide, even if true, does not make it any more likely that the shroud is authentic.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
SezMe
post-pre-born
In Jabba-speak: The live, dead doctor is in,out.
In Jabba-speak: The live, dead doctor is in,out.
You can only tell which after you open the box. Meow!
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
I for one and most other people here understand you. You're just wrong. The cloth on which the image is imprinted must be 2000ish years old for it to be what you want it to be. The cloth has to be older than the image. The cloth carbon dated to the 13th century. By fiat you decided you should dismiss that date but your objections don't amount to anything. Without dating the cloth there's nothing.Hugh,
- Nobody understands me!
- Try this.
- I don't have any "direct" evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old...
- I have only "circumstantial" evidence.
- And ... much of my circumstantial evidence is "circumstantial squared." E.g., that the shroud is an imprint of a real live, dead body is part of the circumstantial evidence leading to my verdict that the shroud is 2000 years old -- but then, I also have only circumstantial evidence that the shroud is an imprint of a real live dead body...
- If that passes muster with you, I'll go on and try to further explain what I'm trying to do here.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
It's worse than that. He's declared that if the dating is wrong, this supports it being 2000 years old. The dating could be wrong by a thousand years and the shroud still wouldn't be old enough to be genuine. He doesn't seem to understand that, even if the C dating is wrong, there are a couple hundred million possibilities other than this being the burial cloth of Jesus that are just as if not far more likely.
Susheel
Illuminator
[Jabbalogic]Then it will be "circumstantial evidence cubed"tm [/Jabbalogic]
Last edited:
gabeygoat
Master Poster
it's this part that fascinates me. He's an idol worshiper. And he needs to be. But he's obviously full of doubt. I don't know what to make of it.
I'd never seen that one before, thanks.
Rincewind
Philosopher
You might like the Onion, too...
- Status