Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[Jabba]

Foundational Stuff

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

 

[Nick Terry]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

#shroudplease

 

[John Jones]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

I'm not answering a darn one of your questions until you start answering some yourself. You owe us a lot of answers.

 

[Belz...]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

#shroudplease

 

[abaddon]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

Everyone bar you. Does that not give you at the very least some indication?

 

[JayUtah]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

Asked and answered.

1. Stop equivocating "circumstantial evidence." You either have persuasive evidence or you don't. If you don't, do the honest thing and resign the debate. If you do, present it without further delay and without trying to give it one presumptive name after another. It doesn't matter whether you consider it "circumstantial" or "indirect" or any other label. It matters only whether you're willing to let it be heard and evaluated.

2. Relevance alone (formerly known as "consistency") is not by itself probative of some desired conclusion over another. You've been told this many times by many people. There is no excuse for your inability to remember this as a key point in the debate. Don't ask again.

3. Do not keep trying to beg the same question over and over again. Do not keep asking people to agree with a conclusion they have specifically rejected, with explanations. Pestering and browbeating your critics by asking the same question over and over again illustrates that you are desperate.

 

[elbe]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

Sorry, some of us went on to talk about this Shroud thing. Your weird probability evidence thing isn't very interesting.

 

[Kid Eager]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

Is that what you are asking?

#Icanhazshroudplz

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

Jabba, there is no such thing as circumstantial evidence. This is not a courtroom. You must stop with this line of "reasoning".

I will not ask you to present evidence because you have none.

The following needs answering:

Is there a miracle, or a paranormal event in your case for authenticity?

Y/N

Apologies to all for my repeated attempts on this. I must be on ignore or something.

 

[JayUtah]

I must be on ignore or something.

You and everyone else. Ducats to donuts he tries polling all his critics by name again to answer the latest incarnation of his standard question-begging.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You continue to ask the wrong question, no matter how may times your error is pointed out to you.

If you feel you must cling to a discussion of "circumstantial evidence", please consider joining a thread over at "Trials and Errors"; there, it would be appropriate.

Since the matter of the manifestly medieval CIQ is not a criminal proceeding, "circumstantial evidence" does not apply.

What evidence do you have to offer, that the manifestly medieval ~700-year-old CIQ is actually ~2000 years old? Is it time for you to admit that you have none; that there is none; and move on?

On a different note: have you repaired the grotesque and egregious errors you have included in your "map"?

I remain helpfully yours, &ct.

 

[Nick Terry]

#Icanhazshroudplz

this

 

[MetalPig]

#doglivesmatter

 

[The Don]

#icanhazevidenz

 

[Rincewind]

#icanhazevidenz

 

[Mojo]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

Do you accept that you could tell what people are saying by reading what they have already posted?

 

[Craig4]

- Is anyone here saying that one bit of relevant information, by itself, can't be circumstantial evidence?

Doesn't matter. Talk about the shroud.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Foundational stiff

We have excellent evidence the cloth is 700 years old.
You have offered none that it is the 2000 years required to be the shroud.

If you were honest you would address this oft raised deal breaker or give up.

 

[Kid Eager]

We have excellent evidence the cloth is 700 years old.
You have offered none that it is the 2000 years required to be the shroud.

If you were honest you would address this oft raised deal breaker or give up.

Would you therefore agree that as they're both in the past, that this is circumstantial evidence that there are years in the pan?

This goes to consilience of Jerusalem also having been in the past, therefore Shroud is more likely than not shroud

 

[abaddon]

Let's just say that your apology rings hollow when it was obviously directed at me, and I don't understand at all what you meant or why you took offense.

I made a blunder. Pobodies Nerfect. You rightly pointed out that blunder. I put my hand up and said guilty as accused, yer honour.

Am I offended? Nope. Simply puzzled as to why this is baking your noodle so much.

And for the record, the apology was both sincere and directed at you. Admitting an error does not perturb me in the slightest. Everyone makes them. I have acknowledged mine and apologised for it. I do not see any further value in continuing this derail. I am not going to append the very same apology to my every post from now until the heat death of the universe.