Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[MRC_Hans]

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, there are seval large rocks on one side of that scale, and nothing on the other. Even IF you were to remove a small pepple on one side, you could not put it on the other (because it is only lack of some evidence), and it would still be empty.

Provide direct evidence of age, or pack up.

Hans

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, there are seval large rocks on one side of that scale, and nothing on the other. Even IF you were to remove a small pepple on one side, you could not put it on the other (because it is only lack of some evidence), and it would still be empty.

Provide direct evidence of age, or pack up.

Hans

Or, provide direct evidence for the cloth being 2000 years old or change your beliefs.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/Effective Debate

- One critical aspect of an effective debate is for the opponents to clearly understand what each other is saying. Consequently, the appropriate answer to a question (direction, complaint, whatever) can be another question...
- You guys have a whole forum to follow your rules. I just ask that you follow my rules in this one thread. And, all I need is for just one of you to follow my rules.

- In my 'private' conversation with Loss Leader, he quit because I broke one of my own rules -- I answered two questions in one post instead of just one question, as I had said that I would. At that point, I admitted that such a rule was unnecessary, and recanted. I changed the rule to simply say that we are required to answer only one question at a time -- we are allowed to answer as many as we wish.

- Is there anyone here willing to take me on while following my rules?
- Let's experiment and see where that leads.
- You've got the rest of the forum to follow your rules.

 

[Agatha]

[as mod]There is nothing stopping you from declaring that you will only answer one named person, and nothing stopping you from requesting that nobody else post other than that named person. However, nobody has to accede to your request here; the MA continues to apply to this thread as well as the 'rest of the forum'. If you want a moderated one-on-one debate with one particular person and that person has already agreed to your terms, then you can request this from the moderators. However, given the history of one-on-one debates here, I cannot guarantee that your request would be granted.[/as mod]

Why not just post some evidence that points to the age of the shroud? Paint/no paint and blood/no blood are nothing to do with the age of the shroud given the availability of paint and blood at all times in history.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- One critical aspect of an effective debate is for the opponents to clearly understand what each other is saying. Consequently, the appropriate answer to a question (direction, complaint, whatever) can be another question...
- You guys have a whole forum to follow your rules. I just ask that you follow my rules in this one thread. And, all I need is for just one of you to follow my rules.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Many posters on this thread have pointed out to you that they do, in fact, understand what you are saying.

Many posters on this thread have demonstrated that they do, in fact, understand what you are saying, by showing you, point-by-point, where what you are saying does err.

With all due respect, all you "need" is the evidence that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old (evidence which you claim to have).

Why not simply present your evidence?

- In my 'private' conversation with Loss Leader, he quit because I broke one of my own rules -- I answered two questions in one post instead of just one question, as I had said that I would. At that point, I admitted that such a rule was unnecessary, and recanted. I changed the rule to simply say that we are required to answer only one question at a time -- we are allowed to answer as many as we wish.

This is a remarkably disingenuous interpretation of what happened to the thread you abandoned.

- Is there anyone here willing to take me on while following my rules?

Are you willing to begin by presenting any and all practical, physical, empirical, non-apologetic, non-anecdotal, objective evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old? If so, why not just do that?

- Let's experiment and see where that leads.
- You've got the rest of the forum to follow your rules.

You've had over two years to present evidence that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old. Please do so.

Thanks.

 

[Belz...]

- One critical aspect of an effective debate is for the opponents to clearly understand what each other is saying. Consequently, the appropriate answer to a question (direction, complaint, whatever) can be another question...
- You guys have a whole forum to follow your rules. I just ask that you follow my rules in this one thread. And, all I need is for just one of you to follow my rules.

- In my 'private' conversation with Loss Leader, he quit because I broke one of my own rules -- I answered two questions in one post instead of just one question, as I had said that I would. At that point, I admitted that such a rule was unnecessary, and recanted. I changed the rule to simply say that we are required to answer only one question at a time -- we are allowed to answer as many as we wish.

- Is there anyone here willing to take me on while following my rules?
- Let's experiment and see where that leads.
- You've got the rest of the forum to follow your rules.

Stop trying to control the debate. Provide direct evidence for the 2000 year age of the shroud now.

 

[Mojo]

- One critical aspect of an effective debate is for the opponents to clearly understand what each other is saying.

OK, here are some examples, from the last couple of pages, of what your opponents have been saying. Read them carefully and see if you can understand what they are saying.

- I think that the strongest evidence supports the shroud being 2000 years old.

All anyone wants here is for you to simply present that evidence.

Address this single issue: What is the evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

Why don't YOU give us some examples of what YOU consider acceptable evidence for it being 2000 years old? YOU are the one who claims that there is such, so let's hear it.

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

You said you have evidence of the tablecloth being ~2000 years old.

Present it.

Post your evidence (you claim to have some, remember?) that the shroud is 2000 years old. Don't ask what people would accept as evidence. Don't complain that there are too many people opposing you. Don't post your desired conclusion as if it is evidence. Don't post evidence that you think makes the shroud authentic but has no actual bearing on its age.

Post your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Just post whatever evidence you have that the shroud is 2000 years old, and that you believe hasn't already been refuted.

I agree with Dinwar. Just provide evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old and stop stalling.

Take a deep breath, and post any and all of the objective, empirical, practical, testable, non-anecdotal evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

You've very bad at math, then, because there's only one question: WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ?

Please present any evidence you have that the shroud is 2000 years old.

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?

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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

Address this please.

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.

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 ?

Stop dodging: present your evidence for the age of the shroud.

Please present some evidence that has a bearing on the age of the shroud.

Present your EVIDENCE that the shroud is 2ka.

No. You have not presented any evidence that the shroud is ~2000 years old.

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

Please provide your claimed evidence that the shroud is ~2000 years old. Do so immediately, and stop being deliberately obtuse.

Please provide practical, empirical, non-anecdotal, objective, testable evidence that the CIQ is, in fact ~2000 years old.

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

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

What evidence have you to offer 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?

• Provide direct evidence the shroud is 2000 years old.

Provide your evidence for the shroud being 2ka.

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

Provide your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Provide direct evidence of age, or pack up.

Why not just post some evidence that points to the age of the shroud?

You've had over two years to present evidence that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old. Please do so.

Thanks.

Stop trying to control the debate. Provide direct evidence for the 2000 year age of the shroud now.

Now read them again. Continue to read them until you understand them.

And then present your evidence that the cloth is around 2000 years old.

 

[hugh farey]

Is there anyone here willing to take me on while following my rules?

Hi Jabba; I would be delighted to discuss anything you like with you using whatever rules you choose. However I have to confess that I have no idea what those rules are, as they keep being obfuscated by clauses and sub-clauses and goodness knows what. Unlike most of the other commenters here, I would really like to change my mind and agree with you that the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Unfortunately, such is my scientific training and experience that I feel the weight of evidence suggests that it is a medieval creation. However, there is no more fertile field than myself if you wish to test your skills of persuasion. How shall we proceed?

 

[Craig4]

- One critical aspect of an effective debate is for the opponents to clearly understand what each other is saying. Consequently, the appropriate answer to a question (direction, complaint, whatever) can be another question...
- You guys have a whole forum to follow your rules. I just ask that you follow my rules in this one thread. And, all I need is for just one of you to follow my rules.

- In my 'private' conversation with Loss Leader, he quit because I broke one of my own rules -- I answered two questions in one post instead of just one question, as I had said that I would. At that point, I admitted that such a rule was unnecessary, and recanted. I changed the rule to simply say that we are required to answer only one question at a time -- we are allowed to answer as many as we wish.

- Is there anyone here willing to take me on while following my rules?
- Let's experiment and see where that leads.
- You've got the rest of the forum to follow your rules.

Proof positive that it's time to change your belief about the Shroud.

 

[Pixel42]

-- In my 'private' conversation with Loss Leader, he quit because I broke one of my own rules -- I answered two questions in one post instead of just one question, as I had said that I would.

If that is really how you remember that train wreck of a thread then I pity you. I also lose my last scintilla of hope that you can ever be helped to see reason.

 

[Dinwar]

Ah, we are back to "If I got to unilaterally dictate how this conversation takes place, we could have effective debate!" I suppose we are supposed to ignore the fact that when you tried it, you failed miserably. YOU failed--you refused to follow your rules and abandoned the attempt.

Please provide DIRECT evidence for a 2 ka age for the shroud.

 

[slyjoe]

Hi Jabba; I would be delighted to discuss anything you like with you using whatever rules you choose. However I have to confess that I have no idea what those rules are, as they keep being obfuscated by clauses and sub-clauses and goodness knows what. Unlike most of the other commenters here, I would really like to change my mind and agree with you that the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Unfortunately, such is my scientific training and experience that I feel the weight of evidence suggests that it is a medieval creation. However, there is no more fertile field than myself if you wish to test your skills of persuasion. How shall we proceed?

Great - another opportunity for a fringe reset.

Jabba - please provide direct evidence for the age of the shroud.

 

[John Jones]

- One critical aspect of an effective debate is for the opponents to clearly understand what each other is saying. Consequently, the appropriate answer to a question (direction, complaint, whatever) can be another question...
- You guys have a whole forum to follow your rules. I just ask that you follow my rules in this one thread. And, all I need is for just one of you to follow my rules.

- In my 'private' conversation with Loss Leader, he quit because I broke one of my own rules -- I answered two questions in one post instead of just one question, as I had said that I would. At that point, I admitted that such a rule was unnecessary, and recanted. I changed the rule to simply say that we are required to answer only one question at a time -- we are allowed to answer as many as we wish.

- Is there anyone here willing to take me on while following my rules?
- Let's experiment and see where that leads.
- You've got the rest of the forum to follow your rules.

No.

Provide evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old or you've got nothing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I can't help but wonder how a set of front-loaded, specially-pled, and inconsistently-applied "rules" can affect, in any way, the fact there has yet to be presented any evidence at all that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

 

[Dinwar]

Hi Jabba; I would be delighted to discuss anything you like with you using whatever rules you choose. However I have to confess that I have no idea what those rules are, as they keep being obfuscated by clauses and sub-clauses and goodness knows what. Unlike most of the other commenters here, I would really like to change my mind and agree with you that the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Unfortunately, such is my scientific training and experience that I feel the weight of evidence suggests that it is a medieval creation. However, there is no more fertile field than myself if you wish to test your skills of persuasion. How shall we proceed?

You misrepresent many of us. I, for one, came into this thread ambivalent towards the question--I entered to clarify some aspects of C14 dating, as I have some experience in that area. Should the shroud have proven to be 2ka, i wouldn't have been upset al all. I am fine with any answer. What idetest is distortion of logic and lies regarding the facts.

 

[John Jones]

[...] Unlike most of the other commenters here, I would really like to change my mind and agree with you that the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus.[...]

I don't recall even having an opinion about the shroud until I saw the logically and ethically bankrupts pro-authenticity arguments in this thread. I'm still perfectly willing to go where the evidence leads.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't recall even having an opinion about the shroud until I saw the logically and ethically bankrupts pro-authenticity arguments in this thread. I'm still perfectly willing to go where the evidence leads.

Not to dogpile, but this is an important point.

There is a gulf vast and fixed between the attitude:

"Since I want to be able to beleive that the CIQ is 'authentic', I will accept anything I read that appears to support that desire, in even the least way, as evidence that the CIQ must be The true Shroud^TM".

...on the one hand, and:

"Since the evidence indicates that the image on the CIQ (with all its catalogued problems) resides on the sized and gessoed surface of a piece of 780-year-old linen, I will accept that the CIQ is a medieval artifact."

...on the other.

THAT is the problem with assuming the consequent.

 

[Jabba]

Shroud Debate

Hi Jabba; I would be delighted to discuss anything you like with you using whatever rules you choose. However I have to confess that I have no idea what those rules are, as they keep being obfuscated by clauses and sub-clauses and goodness knows what. Unlike most of the other commenters here, I would really like to change my mind and agree with you that the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Unfortunately, such is my scientific training and experience that I feel the weight of evidence suggests that it is a medieval creation. However, there is no more fertile field than myself if you wish to test your skills of persuasion. How shall we proceed?

- Thanks, Hugh -- now, I've got to figure out where to start...
- At http://messiahornot.com/Treatise.php, you'll find my description of what I claim will yield effective debate.
- I'll be back.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Thanks, Hugh -- now, I've got to figure out where to start...
- At http://messiahornot.com/Treatise.php, you'll find my description of what I claim will yield effective debate.
- I'll be back.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage:

Unless what you are HOPING for is a wave of posters accusing you of attempting yet another fringe reset, you should really "start" with your evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

Without that, you really ought to consider conducting your "Effective Debate^TM" (with a poster who has also stated that he wishes the CIQ were authentic) by PM, or on your own blog.

An endless repetition of previously-handled posts will not be well-received...

In hopes that you will take my suggestion seriously, I ask:

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

 

[jond]

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage:

Unless what you are HOPING for is a wave of posters accusing you of attempting yet another fringe reset, you should really "start" with your evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

Without that, you really ought to consider conducting your "Effective Debate^TM" (with a poster who has also stated that he wishes the CIQ were authentic) by PM, or on your own blog.

An endless repetition of previously-handled posts will not be well-received...

In hopes that you will take my suggestion seriously, I ask:

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

Staggering, innit? I, for one, have officially given up any hope of any honest discussion here.