Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[elbe]

elbe,
- Are you thinking that the hilited question is a hypothetical?

No, I was thinking the entirety of the question was the hypothetical. It was all one question, just multifaceted.

Hey, while I've got you here, do you think you can provide the evidence of blood being on the shroud and that an authentic shroud would be more likely to have blood? You suggested you could.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

No, I was thinking the entirety of the question was the hypothetical. It was all one question, just multifaceted.

Hey, while I've got you here, do you think you can provide the evidence of blood being on the shroud and that an authentic shroud would be more likely to have blood? You suggested you could.

It's been done to death. We even reinvented the rules of baseball to allow a batter something like 13 strikes, and Jabba still managed to strike out on the blood nonsense.

 

[elbe]

It's been done to death. We even reinvented the rules of baseball to allow a batter something like 13 strikes, and Jabba still managed to strike out on the blood nonsense.

I know, I just kind of want to move past "could anyone agree with me if?"

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I know, I just kind of want to move past "could anyone agree with me if?"

We should be getting close to an invisible reweave reset. With a little luck we might even get a nice "the sudarium has the same nose length, and it's been 'dated' differently, therefore we can dismiss the carbon dating".

 

[Jabba]

You asked a yes or no question: "would anyone here agree that I have provided some circumstantial evidence in favor of authenticity?"
People said "no", that's an answer. It's not the answer you were looking for, however.

I asked if you could actually show what you suggested you could, if you could not the entire hypothetical is a waste of our time.

elbe,
- Are you thinking that the hilited question is a hypothetical?

No, I was thinking the entirety of the question was the hypothetical. It was all one question, just multifaceted.

Hey, while I've got you here, do you think you can provide the evidence of blood being on the shroud and that an authentic shroud would be more likely to have blood? You suggested you could.

elbe,
- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
- Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

elbe,
- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
- Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'

Enough. We all know you have no evidence to present, so you can use whatever excuse you want, we'll still know you have none.

ETA: Even you use scare quotes to wrap "evidence" in. That tells me you have none.

 

[Belz...]

- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?

No.

Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence.

Have you considered that this is because you're wrong?

Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'

BS. Present your 'evidence' and THEN we can discuss it. Stop hiding behind rhetoric and semantics.

 

[elbe]

elbe,
- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
- Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'

You suggested you could demonstrate that the shroud had actual, human blood on it, did you not? Can you? If so, you should present that evidence instead of equivocating about "circumstantial evidence" that no one accepts as useful.

Tell me, if everyone says your evidence isn't good enough why do you still think it is?

 

[ComfySlippers]

...
- Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'

I took the liberty of highliting the whole thing just in case anyone still refuses to see what is going on.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I took the liberty of highliting the whole thing just in case anyone still refuses to see what is going on.

It always boils down to this. We mean skeptics just don't know enough to accept anecdotes and bald assertions. As though we were the ones deciding what actual evidence is. Evidence, that is; not "evidence".

 

[Jabba]

- By the way.
- For the moment at least, I'm not bothering with my blog. I don't have time to either keep up or clean it up...

 

[ComfySlippers]

- By the way.

- For the moment at least, I'm not bothering with my blog. I don't have time to either keep up or clean it up...

You updated it two days ago with more of your nonsense.
You've created a new section devoted to your "circumstantial" claptrap.

I don't have time to either keep up or clean it up...

We've seen how you "clean up" the replies of people here that you misquote there.

 

[John Jones]

elbe,
- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
- Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'

Then why keep going on about it after FOUR YEARS?

 

[MRC_Hans]

- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
- Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'

OK, bye, then.

Seriously, the concept of 'evidence' is widely agreed on. What made you imagine that you could insist on a different one?

Hans

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

- By the way.
- For the moment at least, I'm not bothering with my blog. I don't have time to either keep up or clean it up...

Flush it. It's useless.

 

[Pixel42]

- By the way.
- For the moment at least, I'm not bothering with my blog. I don't have time to either keep up or clean it up...

Then remove it.

It serves no useful purpose even when accurate. When incomplete and inaccurate it's worse than useless.

 

[carlitos]

Guys, you are discussing this with a person who thinks that "By the way" is an entire, cogent phrase, worth of its own bullet point. Please, for the love of DOG.

 

[Sideroxylon]

- By the way.
- For the moment at least, I'm not bothering with my blog. I don't have time to either keep up or clean it up...

Yes, it certainly does need a clean up what with it being s ridiculous dogs breakfast and utterly dishonest. If you had any shame you'd delete it instead.

 

[abaddon]

elbe,
- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
- Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Think about it Jabba.

 

[abaddon]

- By the way.
- For the moment at least, I'm not bothering with my blog. I don't have time to either keep up or clean it up...

Are you stating that you are happy and content to leave standing that cavalcade of dishonest misrepresentation?