Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[AdMan]

Hugh,
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?

Jabba: If you're going to rudely ignore all but one member here, as well as all the requests for evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, you might as well take this to PMs or to your blog. You already tried the one-to-one discussion here and it was a fiasco because you couldn't adhere to it, remember?

And, being realistic, Jabba, what do you think you can accomplish in the thread going forward that you haven't since 2012? You are nowhere nearer to convincing anyone that the shroud is the actual image of Biblical Jesus than you were when you made your first post, and face it--you have no evidence to support what you want to believe.

 

[Mojo]

Hit this ball back to me then (I am one of many people who have played this ball):-
Prove the CIQ is 200 years old

200?

Jabba has just as much evidence that it is 200 years old as he has that it is 2000 years old.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- 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.

From that link:

1) Present the best case for Jesus that I can;
2) Field counter claims;
3) Counter the counter claims;
4) Field the counter claims, to my counters to the original counter claims; etc.

Seems you never fulfilled #1. Why not try to do that now?

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

Seems you never fulfilled #1.

Who's to say he hasn't?

 

[Rincewind]

Note to self - don't post until after the second coffee

Still - thanks for the LOL!

And as others have commented, it doesn't materially alter the argument!

 

[Rincewind]

Hi Jabba,

You know, I can't help wondering just what you get from this?

And, what you expected to get from this?

 

[John Jones]

Hi Jabba,

You know, I can't help wondering just what you get from this?

And, what you expected to get from this?

He has said that he hopes to convince the lurkers that the CIQ is authentic.

 

[abaddon]

He has said that he hopes to convince the lurkers that the CIQ is authentic.

Seems a tad counter productive to not present any evidence at all then doesn't it? If all that can be presented in favour of the CIQ being genuine is an endless series of excuses for the lack of evidence backed up by "in my next post..." predictive lies, who on earth will that convince?

 

[catsmate]

Hugh,
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?

How about you start by stating the evidence that, according to you, proves the shroud is ~2000 year old?
Rather than wasting any more time evading and avoiding...

 

[John Jones]

Seems a tad counter productive to not present any evidence at all then doesn't it? If all that can be presented in favour of the CIQ being genuine is an endless series of excuses for the lack of evidence backed up by "in my next post..." predictive lies, who on earth will that convince?

Apparently nobody.

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?

If the shroud isn't ~2000 years old, it doesn't matter if the image was done on an etch-a-sketch. or with MS paint - it can't be authentic.

So start with your evidence that it's 2000 years old. You said you had some. Was that a fib?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

It takes a breath-taking arrogance to conclude, when you fail to convince anyone of your case, that it is humanity's accepted rules of discourse that are at fault.

Jabba's rules for "effective debate" are even more pathetic than his "evidence" for the antiquity of the Turin Shroud.

 

[Mojo]

- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?

Jabba,
- See here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10734687#post10734687

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, to use your analogy, you might be playing tennis against 26 opponents, but we're all sharing one ball.

 

[Mashuna]

Jabba, to use your analogy, you might be playing tennis against 26 opponents, but we're all sharing one ball.

And Jabba keeps hitting himself in the groin with his own racquet.

 

[Dinwar]

Seems a tad counter productive to not present any evidence at all then doesn't it? If all that can be presented in favour of the CIQ being genuine is an endless series of excuses for the lack of evidence backed up by "in my next post..." predictive lies, who on earth will that convince?

Hardly. The Gish Gallop and other such rhetorical techniques work not because they're honest, but because they exploit deffects in the format of debate and in the human mind. It's far, FAR easier to appear knowledgeable by attacking someone's position than by defending your own (check out any advice on writting essays for the GRE), and if I can't answer all of your questions (for that matter, even if I can) you can keep bringing them up, making it appear that I haven't answered them because I'm ignorant rather than because there's not enough time. That's why in a debate with Creationists many will come out thinking the Creationist won unless the scientist are very, very, very careful.

 

[Loss Leader]

200?

[Sorry... ]

It's an interesting typo, though. Jabba thinks that if he can cast doubt on the carbon dating, then it becomes more likely the thing is actually 2000 years old.

However, it becomes equally likely that the thing is 200 years old or 20 or 20,000, or any other number you can imagine.

Ruling out the carbon dating is not evidence that the shroud is authentic. It's not even evidence that the shroud is older than I am.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hugh,
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?

Define painting. If 'painting' means made by a person using some kind of tool and some kind of dye, then: Sure it can be a painting.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Who's to say he hasn't?

Well, if he has (presented his best evidence), I venture the content of #2:

"No."

Hans

 

[Dinwar]

Define painting. If 'painting' means made by a person using some kind of tool and some kind of dye, then: Sure it can be a painting.

Hans

A fair point. I've been using the term to mean roughly "any technique for applying pigment onto a substraight with the intent of forming an image". Basically, I've been using "painting" to oppose the idea that the cloth gained the image via some sort of radiation--ie, that it was put there intentionally by humans, rather than created accidently by some natural phenomenon.

I dated an artist, and got a crash-course on why "applying pigment to canvass wiht a brush" wasn an inadequate definition of painting. Artists are a lot of fun, but some are really, really odd.