Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[Jabba]

It will take you seconds to allow my post to be published

Filippo,

- As I'm sure you realize, I don't know what I'm doing over there...

- Maybe, you -- or someone else -- could help me keep up and also clean it up... The basic idea is to provide a better way of following the 'branching' (from issue, to sub-issues, to sub-sub-issues, to sub-sub-sub issues , etc.) in our debate. It seems to me that this is the way to allow our debates to move effectively forward (if such is even possible).

- Maybe, we could even develop such a section right here on this forum...

 

[Sideroxylon]

Filippo,

- As I'm sure you realize, I don't know what I'm doing over there...

- Maybe, you -- or someone else -- could help me keep up and also clean it up... The basic idea is to provide a better way of following the 'branching' (from issue, to sub-issues, to sub-sub-issues, to sub-sub-sub issues , etc.) in our debate. It seems to me that this is the way to allow our debates to move effectively forward (if such is even possible).

- Maybe, we could even develop such a section right here on this forum...

Hand over control of the thing to me if you like via PM and I would be pleased to wipe it completely.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Filippo,

- As I'm sure you realize, I don't know what I'm doing over there...

- Maybe, you -- or someone else -- could help me keep up and also clean it up... The basic idea is to provide a better way of following the 'branching' (from issue, to sub-issues, to sub-sub-issues, to sub-sub-sub issues , etc.) in our debate. It seems to me that this is the way to allow our debates to move effectively forward (if such is even possible).

- Maybe, we could even develop such a section right here on this forum...

...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Jabba]

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?

elbe,
1) It isn't everyone who says my evidence isn't good enough -- or, that my 'evidence' isn't evidence -- it's everyone on this thread.
2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

elbe,
1) It isn't everyone who says my evidence isn't good enough -- or, that my 'evidence' isn't evidence -- it's everyone on this thread.
2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

Might be time for a summary of your best evidence. List it.

 

[theprestige]

2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

Cite one of them. Maybe they can make the arguments you seem incapable of making.

 

[Slowvehicle]

elbe,
1) It isn't everyone who says my evidence isn't good enough -- or, that my 'evidence' isn't evidence -- it's everyone on this thread.
2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Plaese provide a citation to one of the "lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars" who "agree with [your] take on the evidence".

Just to make it interesting, be sure your citation is not to someone whose works have already been dealt with here, or which you have not already disallowed by abandoning them.

I remain yours in anticipation, &ct.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba,

- Based on the credible information available about the shroud, I believe a reasonable estimate of the probability it is a fake is greater than 99.99%.
- You would prefer to focus on just the likelihood it is, in fact, the one and only authentic burial shroud for Jesus following his crucifixion.
- You have provided no evidence to support your claim, though.
- Since the shroud is either a fake, authentic, or maybe something else, I have an upper bound on the likelihood it is authentic.
- The probability the shroud is authentic is less than 0.01% (and possibly 0).


- Now, under your view of circumstantial evidence and how it works, do you have anything that would move the probability of an authentic artifact to something above 0.01%?

Remember, though, that Jabba is claiming that individual pieces of what he calls "circumstantial evidence" can, when viewed in isolation, support his favoured conclusion. He is arguing this because he needs to ignore the prior probability.

 

[Agatha]

elbe,
1) It isn't everyone who says my evidence isn't good enough -- or, that my 'evidence' isn't evidence -- it's everyone on this thread.
2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

Cite them, and link to where they agree with your ideas of evidence, please.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>

Where is your claimed evidence for the authenticity of the shroud?

 

[catsmate]

- As I'm sure you realize, I don't know what I'm doing over there...

Oh you know quite well what you're doing. That's why you're refusing to address the facts and evidence that show the supposed shroud is a medieval fabrication.

 

[catsmate]

elbe,
1) It isn't everyone who says my evidence isn't good enough -- or, that my 'evidence' isn't evidence -- it's everyone on this thread.
2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

So show us your supposed "evidence" and stop your lying and evading.

 

[John Jones]

elbe,
[...]
2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

I doubt that very much.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Filippo,

- As I'm sure you realize, I don't know what I'm doing over there...

You know perfectly well what you're trying to do over there.

- Maybe, you -- or someone else -- could help me keep up and also clean it up...

The cheek!
If by "clean up" you mean "delete from the face of the earth" sure.

The basic idea is to provide a better way of following the 'branching' (from issue, to sub-issues, to sub-sub-issues, to sub-sub-sub issues , etc.) in our debate. It seems to me that this is the way to allow our debates to move effectively forward (if such is even possible).

Your obsession with inventing a new style of debate in order to prove that your Magic Floaty-Man existed is a pointless waste of time.

Magic Floaty-Man didn't float. Your cloth is a crappy cloth. Get over it.

- Maybe, we could even develop such a section right here on this forum...

You've wasted enough 0s and 1s on this forum already.

 

[ComfySlippers]

elbe,
1) It isn't everyone who says my evidence isn't good enough -- or, that my 'evidence' isn't evidence -- it's everyone on this thread.
...

You have no evidence. You've never had any evidence.
...So you try to redefine the meaning of "evidence".
...Then waffle on about circumstantial evidence.
You ignore most responses because they're not in agreement with you.
You've stated you don't have time to read past the first line of replies.
You've publicly stated elsewhere what your agenda here is.

 

[Ladewig]

The basic idea is to provide a better way of following the 'branching' (from issue, to sub-issues, to sub-sub-issues, to sub-sub-sub issues , etc.) in our debate. It seems to me that this is the way to allow our debates to move effectively forward (if such is even possible).

Surely, you cannot believe that.

If every issue shows you have no evidence, every sub-issue shows you have no evidence, and every sub-sub-issue shows you have no evidence, then reorganizing them or mapping them or restructuring them CANNOT produce evidence.

If one has a long string of zeros, one cannot add them up in a special order to get a positive number.

 

[JoeMorgue]

elbe,
1) It isn't everyone who says my evidence isn't good enough -- or, that my 'evidence' isn't evidence -- it's everyone on this thread.

This is the argumentative equivalent of a single guy in high school telling his friends he has a girlfriend... but she lives in Canada and they wouldn't know her.

2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

Then what exactly is your desperate need to get validation from us? If a bunch of well read scholars agree with you, can't you just accept that we're wrong and move on with your life?

Seriously Jabba what is your point!? What is your goal? What purpose does this endless deathspiral that dares to call itself a discussion serve?

 

[ComfySlippers]

Surely, you cannot believe that.

If every issue shows you have no evidence, every sub-issue shows you have no evidence, and every sub-sub-issue shows you have no evidence, then reorganizing them or mapping them or restructuring them CANNOT produce evidence.

If one has a long string of zeros, one cannot add them up in a special order to get a positive number.

.
Shroud of Turin Blog - 2012

Mrach 27, 2012 at 6:17 am
Ron,
– I’m responding experimentally — hopefully, the format I’ll be trying will be effective.

Ron :
Richard, seeing as these athiests seem to attack you on all fronts, never really giving you a chance to direct yourself to one area (A typical strategy by the way). Here’s a tip; Attack them directly at their strongest points for inauthenticity and don’t waver from this strategy.They don’t have many points;…

– I fully agree. In fact, that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. I’ve asked them to tell me which sub-sub-etc-issue to address first. Without having a singular spokesperson, however, they’ve given me numerous sub…issues to address, and I’ve had to pare them down to one. At this point, it’s carbon dating/non-representative section/problematic selection… Hopefully, that’s decipherable.
– If it is, and if you have a favorite article (or two) regarding that sub-issue, please point me to it (them).
— Rich

March 30, 2012 at 10:59 am
Annie,
– Running in circles is probably my biggest problem, and I think that I know how to prevent such foolishness — it’s just hard to resist the temptation to try to answer all my opponents questions and objections as quickly as possible…– Instead, I should be constantly narrowing my focus — from one issue, to one “sub-issue,” to one sub-sub issue, to one sub-sub-sub-issue”, etc. Hope that’s coherent…
– Whatever, I’ll keep working on it.
— Rich

Annie,
– I am learning a lot, and I do doubt that any of them will change their minds — but then,
1) one of them does seem open-minded about the issue;
2) I’m still hoping that I can keep narrowing the focus enough so that we (most of us) can finally agree upon exactly what it is that we disagree about; and,
3) I’ll be able to attract someone to our website where we can reduce their spokesperson to one, and (with a little luck) drum up a somewhat neutral audience.

.
Four years of Claptrap, Sub-Claptrap, Sub-Sub-Claptrap, Sub-Sub-Sub-Claptrap.

Yeah. I also expect it to be “supernatural,” but it should give us great pause, whether or not it’s supernatural. An authentic Shroud makes makes Jesus extremely personal.

 

[ComfySlippers]

...
Then what exactly is your desperate need to get validation from us? If a bunch of well read scholars agree with you, can't you just accept that we're wrong and move on with your life?

Seriously Jabba what is your point!? What is your goal? What purpose does this endless deathspiral that dares to call itself a discussion serve?

.
Shroud of Turin Blog

March 30, 2012 at 10:46 am
– Thanks, guys. Looks like I’ve got my work cut out for me.
– I would sure like to stay in touch — can we do that effectively on Dan’s blog?
– If not, my email address is rsavage@xxxxxx; my Shroud blog is http://shrouddebates.com/; my attempt at a fair trial for Jesus is found at http://messiahornot.com/.

.
Messiah, or Not?

35. For now, it’s enough to know that I'll try to carry out the debate on these pages in the form of a trial conducted in an American appeals court (Jesus being already tried and convicted).

 

[JayUtah]

As I'm sure you realize, I don't know what I'm doing over there...

You most certainly do. You manage to get content in there just fine -- at least the content you want seen, and as recently as just a small number of days ago. No one is buying the feeble attempt at the befuddled grandpa defense or the "too busy to get it right" defense.

Fix it or get rid of it. Now.

Maybe, you -- or someone else -- could help me keep up and also clean it up

No. It is no one's responsibility but yours, and it is an insulting travesty. Just get rid of it.

Maybe, we could even develop such a section right here on this forum...

Or maybe instead of obsessing over your ability to analyze a debate (which you frankly do not have), you could demonstrate your ability to have a debate. That's what this forum is for. If you want to start a thread about how brilliant you are at analyzing a debate, I'm sure this forum will indulge you. But the evidence shows you need a moderator for that debate who isn't you.