Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
2000 Yrs?/Evidence?

pgwenthold said:
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 not require nor imply that it is 2000 years old.
Click to expand...
pg,
- It is indirect evidence.
- First, it means that you can toss the words of McCrone and d'Arci. Their words have been used as significant evidence against the shroud being 2000 years old...
- There's more, but I'll leave it there for now.
 
Jabba said:
pg,
- It is indirect evidence.
- First, it means that you can toss the words of McCrone and d'Arci. Their words have been used as significant evidence against the shroud being 2000 years old...
- There's more, but I'll leave it there for now.
Click to expand...

It says nothing about the date of the cloth. It isn't even indirect evidence. Real Live Dead Bodies existed in 1300 CE as well as 30 CE, and every time in between and since. You need to provide evidence that has a positive correlation to the 30CE date. The problem is you have no such evidence, and now your desperately avoiding the issue.

--there's more, but until you provide evidence in support of your claim, we're going to keep telling you to provide the evidence you claim to have.
 
Jabba said:
- 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?
Click to expand...

No, because none have been presented.

None of this have anything to do with the date.

You asked for one issue, I presented one issue. Either address it, or admit you can't. Those are your only honest options. Mentioning paint again will be taken as an admission that you are not willing to engage in honest discussion.
 
Jabba said:
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).
Click to expand...

Jabba, you have presented no evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old even after claiming that you possess such evidence. If you don't present such evidence, I shall have no choice but to insist that you are lying.

Do you enjoy being branded as a liar yet again after these 3 years?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for your tricks. There is no complaint but a QUESTION: _WHAT_ is your evidence for the shroud being 2000 years old ?
 
Jabba said:
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).
Click to expand...

That post doesn't do what you claim it does. You know it's against Jesus to lie ?
 
Jabba, even if everyone on this thread accepts that the shroud was not painted, that still doesn't make this paint/not paint thing any kind of evidence. Not direct, not indirect, not even hearsay - because 'real live dead bodies' and blood have been available from the beginning of history right through to the present day.

Please present some evidence that has a bearing on the age of the shroud.
 
pgwenthold said:
Of what?

How does "it wasn't painted" imply it was 2000 years old in any way?
Click to expand...


Pgwenthold,
- I am typing this on my phone.
- The keyboard I am typing it on is not painted.
- This is indirect evidence that my phone is 2000 years old, isn't it?
 
2000 Yrs?/Evidence?

jond said:
It says nothing about the date of the cloth. It isn't even indirect evidence. Real Live Dead Bodies existed in 1300 CE as well as 30 CE, and every time in between and since. You need to provide evidence that has a positive correlation to the 30CE date. The problem is you have no such evidence, and now your desperately avoiding the issue.

--there's more, but until you provide evidence in support of your claim, we're going to keep telling you to provide the evidence you claim to have.
Click to expand...
Jond,
- The testimonies of McCrone and d'Arci are used to support the conclusion that the shroud is not 2000 years old. If I can present evidence that their testimonies are incorrect, I have eliminated some of the evidence against the 2000 year date, and have thereby changed the tipping of the scale.
 
Jabba said:
Jond,
- The testimonies of McCrone and d'Arci are used to support the conclusion that the shroud is not 2000 years old. If I can present evidence that their testimonies are incorrect, I have eliminated some of the evidence against the 2000 year date, and have thereby changed the tipping of the scale.
Click to expand...

No. "Tipping the scales" is not valid, for reasons we discussed previously. Not the least of which is because the date has so many lines of evidence pointing to it that invalidating any three of them STILL wouldn't impact the conclusion.

Present your EVIDENCE that the shroud is 2ka. It is obvious that you had no intention to honor your request that I present a single issue to address, as you continue to refuse to address it, but I am giving you another chance.

By the way, in court you would be in jail for obstruction of justice and contempt of court at this point, and in science we all would have dismissed you as irrelevant, and that is going off our present exchange. We are being unusually generous giving you this many chances.
 
Jabba said:
Jond,
- The testimonies of McCrone and d'Arci are used to support the conclusion that the shroud is not 2000 years old. If I can present evidence that their testimonies are incorrect, I have eliminated some of the evidence against the 2000 year date, and have thereby changed the tipping of the scale.
Click to expand...

Then do so. Now.
 
Jabba said:
Jond,
- The testimonies of McCrone and d'Arci are used to support the conclusion that the shroud is not 2000 years old. If I can present evidence that their testimonies are incorrect, I have eliminated some of the evidence against the 2000 year date, and have thereby changed the tipping of the scale.
Click to expand...

The scale doesn't tip toward a pan that has nothing in it.
 
Jabba said:
Jond,
- The testimonies of McCrone and d'Arci are used to support the conclusion that the shroud is not 2000 years old. If I can present evidence that their testimonies are incorrect, I have eliminated some of the evidence against the 2000 year date, and have thereby changed the tipping of the scale.
Click to expand...

No. You have not presented any evidence that the shroud is ~2000 years old.
 
Loss Leader said:
If the shroud is authentic, then the carbon dating must be wrong.
The carbon dating is wrong.
Thus, the shroud is authentic.
Click to expand...

Jabba, this is what you are saying.

If the evidence for the shroud being from 13CE is removed, that does not make it from 1CE. That is, if the radiocarbon dates are invalid, that only means it may be any age - including from 13th century. Or 9th CE, or 13th BCE, for that matter.

More specifically, you are making the error of Affirming the consequentWP. The example from there:
Wikipedia said:
  • If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
  • Bill Gates is rich.
  • Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that you haven't proved that any of the evidence for the shroud being 13th century (late 1200s) is invalid.

In fact, it seems to me that your reasons for invalidating the dating to the late 13th century is that you believe the shroud to be authentic - and the only stated reasons for it being authentic is that the dating is invalid. That's circular.

You have only one question to answer - one that nearly every poster has been asking you for literally pages of this thread*:
  • What direct evidence gives an age of 1st CE for the shroud?
Not "what weakens the evidence for the 13CE date".

* It may well be the entire thread; I haven't read it all.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Savage:

It is on like Donkey Kong!

Here is my primary complaint, echoed by others: you have yet to present a single bit of evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. The very next thing you should do is present such evidence.

Please provide practical, empirical, non-anecdotal, objective, testable evidence that the CIQ is, in fact ~2000 years old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom