Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[MRC_Hans]

- Whatever, you guys keep saying how you have already refuted all my "evidence" -- when, for the most part, I just haven't had time to answer most of your "refutations."

Oh, cry me a river. Why don't you just answer the refutations? How hard should that be?

- I accept that some of my claims have (at least, apparently) been refuted -- but that's only a small minority.

No. It is EVERY single claim you ever made.

But, let me help you out a bit:

1) Jabba: The spots on the shroud that represent blood ARE in fact made from blood because (non-conclusive evidence).

1.1) Chorous: So maybe it's blood. Let us say it is blood. How is that evidence for authenticy?

2) Jabba: Because ................ (fill in your argument)

See? How hard is that?

Hans

 

[Loss Leader]

Actual questions directed at Jabba in the posts he highlighted (quotes edited to show only the questions he was asked):

How about some testimony of its existence from before the date we think it appeared in?
Or how about some analysis of the physiological features of the image to show that it could have been a real man?
Or how about a different dating method that gives a much older date?

But why should we bother?
Why don't YOU give us some examples of what YOU consider acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old?

<no questions asked>

Evidence of what?
The age?
How about a recorded provenance dating back 2000 years?

<no questions asked>

Do you understand that even if it were proven that there was blood on the shroud, that says nothing about the date?
Do you understand that even if it were proven that the cloth was wrapped in a "real live dead person", that says nothing about the date?

What evidence would convince you that the shroud is not authentic?
Are you even capable of entertaining the idea?

<no question asked>

<no question asked.

<no question asked>

<no question for Jabba>

<no question asked>

Not really that many questions at all. And, in fact, I will gladly withdraw my two questions if it makes it easier for you to focus on the only real question asked: What is your evidence?

 

[Belz...]

Not really that many questions at all.

And they're not really questions that need answering, on my end. It's just a way to phrase a list of possible evidence that Jabba could present. At this point, he's more than aware that his evasion of the only question at hand is dishonest.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,

Answer this one question and the majority of the recent questions will have been dealt with:

What evidence do you have that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

Answering that one question will eliminate the need for a dozen of your bulleted list points, and will perhaps satisfy your interlocutors.

Even if the only answer you can provide is "I have no evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old", it will still answer the question and put paid to that issue.

Try it!

 

[Belz...]

I concur with the above.

 

[John Jones]

He listed my post, but there is not a single question in there. In fact, the entirety of my post was to answer a direct question posed by Jabba himself. So he asks a question, someone responds, and then he complains that he received a reply.

Indeed. I would ask Jabba how he would respond to your post, but he already has so many reasons why he can't, that he must be writing a book about it.

Hey Jabba, have you got any evidence that the CIQ is 2,000 years old?

Present some of that, and your proper burden of proof will get lighter.

 

[Craig4]

- I count 25 different questions and objections to my last response (within the first 4 hrs and 30 mins). I urge to answer all of them -- and, with different answers to each. I don't know how long this would take, but the less thought I put into each one, the more complaints (that urge my response) I'll get. And whatever, I'd get multiple complaints to each response.
- If you wish, I'll respond to all 25, one at a time, and see how many different complaints I get...

- Whatever, you guys keep saying how you have already refuted all my "evidence" -- when, for the most part, I just haven't had time to answer most of your "refutations."
- I accept that some of my claims have (at least, apparently) been refuted -- but that's only a small minority. You have, in fact, "rebutted" (i.e., "To rebut is to argue against something." http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rebut) most of my claims, but for most of your rebuttals, I have my own rebuttals -- in other words, most of my claims have not been refuted, and I do have more to say about them...

Sorry you feel hard done by. Please provide evidence the Shroud is 2000ish years old.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?

Seconded.

That said, any evidence you provide has to fit the following criteria:

1) It must be new. ALL evidence you have presented in this thread have been thoroughly addressed, and to present them again is dishonest.
2) It must directly relate to the age of the shroud. It can't relate to ANY other aspect of the shroud, including the image.
3) It must be independently verifiable. Meaning, it cannot rely solely on your opinion.
4) It must fit with established scientific sampling procedures. The C14 data did. The organic chemistry analysis (giving it the best description possible) did not.

Anything that fit those four criteria would at least be worth looking at. Anything that fails any of these is not.

An example of something that would count would be an inventory of relics in a church that is known to not be forged (dated properly) and which lists the shroud on the items, and which dates from the first century AD. Alternatively, stable isotopic dating presenting a 1st century AD date would be worth discussing. Stuff like that.

Dinwar,
- Let's get it on. Give me one complaint at a time, and I will do my best to answer it...
- If one complaint has multiple 'branches' (parts), I'll do my best to answer the first branch. If we can finish that first branch, we can go on to the next.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Dinwar,
- Let's get it on. Give me one complaint at a time, and I will do my best to answer it...
- If one complaint has multiple 'branches' (parts), I'll do my best to answer the first branch. If we can finish that first branch, we can go on to the next.

Who do you think you are fooling here with the ridiculous dancing about the point? Just pony up the evidence you say you have of the cloth being 2000 years old.

 

[jond]

Dinwar,
- Let's get it on. Give me one complaint at a time, and I will do my best to answer it...
- If one complaint has multiple 'branches' (parts), I'll do my best to answer the first branch. If we can finish that first branch, we can go on to the next.

You seem to have forgotten that Dinwar's post was in response to your question about what kind of evidenc we would accept. It's not Dinwar's turn to provide evidence for you to answer, it's time for you to provide evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old. Get to it!

 

[John Jones]

Dinwar,
- Let's get it on. Give me one complaint at a time, and I will do my best to answer it...
- If one complaint has multiple 'branches' (parts), I'll do my best to answer the first branch. If we can finish that first branch, we can go on to the next.

Drop this bravado act. It's making your position look even weaker, if that's possible.

Just present your evidence that the shroud is ~2000 years old, and stop telling us what you're going to do later.

 

[Pixel42]

Dinwar,
- Let's get it on. Give me one complaint at a time, and I will do my best to answer it...
- If one complaint has multiple 'branches' (parts), I'll do my best to answer the first branch. If we can finish that first branch, we can go on to the next.

My complaint is that you still haven't presented the evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old that you claimed to have.

There are no branches to this complaint.

Your answer can take just one of the following two forms:

1. Presentation of evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old
2. Admittance that no such evidence exists

I agree that when, and only when, you have answered this complaint should you move on to the next, assuming the answer is (1). If the answer is (2) no further discussion is necessary.

 

[Craig4]

Dinwar,
- Let's get it on. Give me one complaint at a time, and I will do my best to answer it...
- If one complaint has multiple 'branches' (parts), I'll do my best to answer the first branch. If we can finish that first branch, we can go on to the next.

Hiding behind process again. Here's a thought; provide evidence for the shroud being 2000 years old.

ETA: Or, change you beliefs to match the evidence for the shroud being from the 13th century.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dinwar,
- Let's get it on. Give me one complaint at a time, and I will do my best to answer it...
- If one complaint has multiple 'branches' (parts), I'll do my best to answer the first branch. If we can finish that first branch, we can go on to the next.

Another post promising to post.

Just present your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar,
- Let's get it on. Give me one complaint at a time, and I will do my best to answer it...
- If one complaint has multiple 'branches' (parts), I'll do my best to answer the first branch. If we can finish that first branch, we can go on to the next.

Complaint 1: you have presented no evidence for an age of 2ka that has not been refuted.

Address this please.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/Refuted?

Complaint 1: you have presented no evidence for an age of 2ka that has not been refuted.

Address this please.

Dinwar,
- I probably have not presented any evidence that has not been argued against -- and, I haven't even presented any direct evidence. But, I have presented lots of indirect evidence that have not been refuted.
- For instance, I have presented lots of evidence for the image not being painted (e.g. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10697173&highlight=piczek#post10697173).

 

[Agatha]

- For instance, I have presented lots of evidence for the image not being painted (e.g. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10697173&highlight=piczek#post10697173).

The image not being painted (if it isn't) tells you nothing about the age of the thing. It could be 'not painted' in 4 CE, or 1290 CE or 1360 CE or any other date. This isn't even indirect evidence for the age of the Turin tablecloth. Similarly, blood and dead bodies have been available throughout all periods in history, so blood and scourge marks etc also tell you nothing about the item's age.

Please try again, this time presenting some evidence that has a bearing on the age of the shroud.

 

[Dinwar]

First, no, you have not presented any evidence that has not been refuted. You are playing word games and hoping we will all ignore the past two years. For example, the fact that this paint has failed over a few centuries invalidates your arguments, which all compare the image against fresh paint as far as I am aware.

Second, your example has nothing to do with age and therefore does not count.

Let's try this again:

Complaint 1: you have not presented any evidence for a 2ka age that has not been refuted.

Address this please.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/Refuted?

First, no, you have not presented any evidence that has not been refuted. You are playing word games and hoping we will all ignore the past two years. For example, the fact that this paint has failed over a few centuries invalidates your arguments, which all compare the image against fresh paint as far as I am aware.

Second, your example has nothing to do with age and therefore does not count.

Let's try this again:

Complaint 1: you have not presented any evidence for a 2ka age that has not been refuted.

Address this please.

- Do you accept that there are intelligent -- and well-versed -- experts on the shroud (more 'versed' than you or me) that have concluded that the image was not painted?

 

[pgwenthold]

- Do you accept that there are intelligent -- and well-versed -- experts on the shroud (more 'versed' than you or me) that have concluded that the image was not painted?

Why does this matter?

Assume for the sake of argument that we can agree that the image was not painted. Please explain how this says anything about when it was created? They were capable of not painting in 1300.

This is what people have tried telling you. The things you bring up do nothe require nor imply that it is 2000 years old.