Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

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).

Dear Mr. Savage:

This has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple posters. I shall point it out again.

Arguendo, let us ignore that the depiction upon the CIQ is an anatomically ridiculous, posturally impossible, scripturally heretical, historically inaccurate, laws-of-physics-violating, representational stylizes image rendered upon the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of ~780-year-old-linen.

If, in fact, the image on the CIQ were to be demonstrated NOT to be a "painting" in what way does that address the issue of the ae of the CIQ? What would it be about the image not-being-a-painting that would indicate a particular date?

This is crucial: although all evidence indicates that the image on the CIQ was applied to the sized and gessoed surface of a ~780-year-old piece of linen, what about the way the image was (or was not) formed dates it?

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

This is wrong. It's backwards. You cannot prove the age of the shroud by shooting holes in other theories. Why? Because there are an infinite amount of theories. Shoot down a million of them and you're no closer to supporting one than you were when you started.


Jabba: The moon is made of cheese.
Me: Well, I went to the moon and it certainly was not made of cheese. It was made of rock similar to that found in the earth's mantle.
Jabba: You did not go to the moon, you were 3 when the Apollo program ended.
Me: You got me there. I never personally went to the moon.
Jabba: Since I have disproved one thing you said, I have now provided evidence that the moon is made of cheese.
Me: ???

 

[John Jones]

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.

You have not provided any evidence that the shroud is ~2000 years old.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- 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?

No.

There are people who style themselves "experts" that assume that the CIQ must be "authentic", and, starting from that assumed consequent, specially-plead cherry-picked evidence (as has been pointed out to you); but (and this is crucial) the sub-sub-side-derail-issue of whether the anatomically absurd, posturally impossible, scripturally and historically inaccurate, stylized representation of a three-diemnsional fiure on the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of a length of ~780-year-old-linen (failed physics "blood" and all) is, or is not, a "painting", SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the AGE of the the anatomically absurd, posturally impossible, scripturally and historically inaccurate, stylized representation of a three-diemnsional fiure on the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of a length of ~780-year-old-linen (failed physics "blood" and all).

What evidence have you that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Um, no.

The ¹⁴C dating, done by three independent laboratories, under three independent protocols, demonstrates that the CIQ is ~780 years old. You must overcome that with actual evidence.

What evidence have you to offer that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

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?

You must be very blessed to carry the Smatphone of the Saviour^TM.

Verizon be Praised!

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Dear Mr. Savage.

No, this is not correct.

In essence, you are hoping to get away with claiming that the CIQ "isn't not" ~2000 years old (while ignoring the ¹⁴C dates); what you need to be ding instead is presenting evidence that the CIQ is,in fact, ~2000 years old.

What evidence do you have that demonstrates that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- What are those reasons?

Dear Mr. Savage:

What has this question to do with the evidence you said you could present that demonstrates that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?

(I have to ask: do you, in fact, READ this thread, at all?)

 

[grmcdorman]

Stop asking questions. Provide your evidence for the 2000 year age of the shroud now.



NOTE TO ALL: I suggest you write only this from now on until Jabba complies. Stop giving him room to wiggle.

I would agree - but also, the question should be:

• Provide direct evidence the shroud is 2000 years old.

otherwise we get the same recycled "reasons" (it's not ~700 years old so it must be 2000 years old).

 

[Kid Eager]

Yikes!

I come for a quick visit to the thread to see what's happening, and it's like Groundhog Day having deja vu again repeatedly and recursively.

Surely it's clear by now there's no evidence and Jabbas posts are just avoidances of various shades...

It's also pretty obvious why the "better" technique has been touted by him - it gives equal weight to arguing as to evidence. Pfft! Such transparent flummery.

 

[Belz...]

Yikes!

I come for a quick visit to the thread to see what's happening, and it's like Groundhog Day having deja vu again repeatedly and recursively.

"Do you seek knowledge of time travel ?"
"We'll take that as a yes."
"Let us begin with our first lesson."
"? levart emit fo egdelwonk kees uoy oD.... Do you seek knowledge of time travel ?"

 

[Dinwar]

- What are those reasons?

They are in this thread, and if you had been paying attention to the posts you responded to you would know them.

Provide your evidence for the shroud being 2ka.

 

[Blue Mountain]

One day you meet a man who says he was born in Russia and is 115 years old, and has a small group of followers who believe him. It's quite a claim, but still believable, considering the oldest documented human being died at 122½.

So you start checking out his story. Suddenly you discover there are a few problems with his claims.

• He looks to be only somewhere around 40 years old. [The shroud is consistent with a cloth from the medieval period.]
• When asked his name and birthplace, he gives the name of a town that existed 115 years ago but has since been destroyed. [The shroud believers claim it to be from Jerusalem, but there are no surviving records of it.]
• His name was a popular one for boys in 1976 USA but relatively unheard of in Russia round about 1900. [The herringbone weave of the shroud fits nicely with the medieval period.]
• He speaks no Russian at all and his English is quite contemporary. [The image on the shroud is very medieval in appearance.]
• Searching archives for people with his name turns up information starting in the 1970s, not from between 1895-1905. [There is no provenance for the shroud from before 1390.]
• A bone density scan shows his bones to be consistent with those of a 35-40 year old male. [The ¹⁴C dating of the shroud is consistent with a cloth that was manufactured between 1260 and 1390.]

Given all the problems with his story, not the least of which is the fact this man looks like he's only 40 years old, what would it take to convince you that he's actually 115 years old?

That's what we're asking here. We have a lot of evidence the shroud dates from about 1400 AD. We're asking you to show us why we should believe it dates from approximately 30 AD.

 

[Dinwar]

Forgot one, Bluee Mountain: There are birth records for him from 1970 (the shroud was declared a fake, and suspects named, in the Middle Ages). Other than that, a fantastic analogy!

 

[jond]

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.

Absolutely not. You have the burden of proof. Showing someone is wrong says NOTHING about whether or not you are correct. You need to present evidence that indicates that the cloth dates to the first century CE. That is the only thing I, or anyone else will accept as evidence. You know this, and yet you keep dancing around it.

 

[SezMe]

I would agree - but also, the question should be:

• Provide direct evidence the shroud is 2000 years old.

otherwise we get the same recycled "reasons" (it's not ~700 years old so it must be 2000 years old).

Agreed.

Perhaps an example will help you, Jabba.

Jabba: What is your best direct evidence the shroud is only ~700 years old.
ISF: Good question. Let us start with our BEST direct evidence. The carbon dating.
Jabba: I'd like to see some links.
ISF: Here <numerous links follow>
Jabba: In link <number>, I disagree because ....
ISF: Discussion ensues

See how it goes? So, let's start:

ISF: What is your best direct evidence the shroud is ~2000 years old.
Jabba: Your turn.

 

[Craig4]

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.

You have evidence that the tape samples McCrone studied did not contain red ochre? Please permit this small diversion as McCrone's findings are a second smoking gun as to the cloth's fraudulent origins.

 

[Mojo]

Arguendo, let us ignore that the depiction upon the CIQ is an anatomically ridiculous, posturally impossible, scripturally heretical, historically inaccurate, laws-of-physics-violating, representational stylizes image rendered upon the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of ~780-year-old-linen.

Otherwise OK?[/Jabba Basil Fawlty]

 

[Mojo]

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.

To even have a chance of "tipping the scales" you would need to provide evidence supporting a 2000 year age. And you have provided nothing. All we have is a whole heap of evidence (the carbon dating, the weave of the cloth, etc.) showing that the cloth is much less old than this. Removing a little bit of circumstantial evidence from this heap doesn't put anything on the other side. The only thing on the other side, at present, is your handwaving.

Please provide your evidence (which you claim to have, remember?) that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Mojo]

- What are those reasons?

Provide your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.