• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you say "this thread" what do you mean? The one we are currently discussing in? I am asking not to be snarky but because the way you wrote it usually indicates that the underlined word is a link to a separate thread, but your underlined word is not such a link.

My suggestions:

1. Don't try to address multiple issues; addressing even one has so far proven beyond you, so going for two will surely result in failure.

2. Stick with the C14

3. Specifically, and first, deal with the comments on the link you provided. You have been given specific reasons that the paper you were certain introduced reasonable doubt does not in fact do so. What are your responses to those comments?

Frankly, this last post of yours is just more of the same: I will now address what I have been saying I would address and am addressing, but I will not actually address it.

Your entire history is one of promising evidence and offering opinion followed by avoidance.
 
Jabba said:
- Doing that, I'll try to 1) defend what I've already presented, 2) see if I can find more information that I would consider evidence for invalidity, and 3) respond to your various q/c's regarding the C14.
Click to expand...
Please stop telling us what you plan on doing. Either do it, or don't.

If you're going to address C14 dating, though, I STRONGLY suggest you gain an understanding of the methods used and the principles behind the techniques. Because now you're saying that you are an expert in C14 dating (otherwise, why should we care about your opinion?). That means I expect you to be able to handle the simple questions, like what type of reactor was used for the study and how the contamination (if you can demonstrate any was present--thus far you haven't, you've merely quoted people more or less asserting it) could impact the dates. For that last one, I'm going to expect to see numbers and equations.

You're playing in my field now, Jabba.

- At the same time, I will start a new thread focusing on the probability that there is real blood, in the right places, on the Shroud. I perceive this conclusion as being especially important towards supporting the authenticity of the Shroud.
Click to expand...
An irrelevancy. As I've already pointed out, even if it IS real blood that doesn't prove it's JESUS' blood. A devoted con artist in the 14th century certainly had easy enough access to the stuff.
 
Dinwar said:
Please stop telling us what you plan on doing. Either do it, or don't. If you're going to address C14 dating, though, I STRONGLY suggest you gain an understanding of the methods used and the principles behind the techniques. Because now you're saying that you are an expert in C14 dating (otherwise, why should we care about your opinion?). That means I expect you to be able to handle the simple questions, like what type of reactor was used for the study and how the contamination (if you can demonstrate any was present--thus far you haven't, you've merely quoted people more or less asserting it) could impact the dates. For that last one, I'm going to expect to see numbers and equations.

You're playing in my field now, Jabba.

An irrelevancy. As I've already pointed out, even if it IS real blood that doesn't prove it's JESUS' blood. A devoted con artist in the 14th century certainly had easy enough access to the stuff.
Click to expand...

I approve of this message.:)
 
Blood on the Shroud

- In this thread, I will try to show that the preponderance of evidence greatly favors the existence of appropriate blood (on the Shroud of Turin), and in the right places.
- I do this for three reasons. I think that,
1) Actually effective debate requires a constant narrowing of focus – otherwise, we just go in circles. If we start out with a sub-sub-issue within the larger Issue of the Shroud’s authenticity, we won’t need as much narrowing.
2) Showing such preponderance of evidence for appropriate blood on the Shroud, and in the right places, would be a big step towards showing that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity.
3) Showing that, and spreading the word, would be quite useful.
--- Jabba
 
Religious Bigots?

- First of all, tell me why you guys think that the members of STURP, as well as other scientists, presenting (what they call, at least) evidence and arguments for Shroud authenticity, are all a bunch of religious bigots. Give me citations and numbers.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
- First of all, tell me why you guys think that the members of STURP, as well as other scientists, presenting (what they call, at least) evidence and arguments for Shroud authenticity, are all a bunch of religious bigots. Give me citations and numbers.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

So you are not going to do anything. Nobody mentioned the word bigot. Deluded would be more accurate. How can you give numbers about bigotry?
 
Jabba said:
- First of all, tell me why you guys think that the members of STURP, as well as other scientists, presenting (what they call, at least) evidence and arguments for Shroud authenticity, are all a bunch of religious bigots. Give me citations and numbers.
Click to expand...
Tell me why you consider me a baby-eating cannibal. Give me citations and numbers.

Since I've not accused anyone of bigotry, but rather attacked the flaws in their arguments, I consider my request to be as valid as yours. Neither implied accusation has any substantiating evidence to support it, after all.
 
Jabba said:
- In this thread, I will try to show that the preponderance of evidence greatly favors the existence of appropriate blood (on the Shroud of Turin), and in the right places.
- I do this for three reasons. I think that,
1) Actually effective debate requires a constant narrowing of focus – otherwise, we just go in circles. If we start out with a sub-sub-issue within the larger Issue of the Shroud’s authenticity, we won’t need as much narrowing.
2) Showing such preponderance of evidence for appropriate blood on the Shroud, and in the right places, would be a big step towards showing that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity.
3) Showing that, and spreading the word, would be quite useful.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Spreading blood on a piece of cloth is quite easy. Try it.
 
I'll wait for the evidence. Convince me.

~With the caveat that I prefer simple explanations i.e. it's simpler to suppose that the image was intentionally man-made.
 
Jabba said:
- In this thread, I will try to show that the preponderance of evidence greatly favors the existence of appropriate blood (on the Shroud of Turin), and in the right places.
- I do this for three reasons. I think that,
1) Actually effective debate requires a constant narrowing of focus – otherwise, we just go in circles. If we start out with a sub-sub-issue within the larger Issue of the Shroud’s authenticity, we won’t need as much narrowing.
2) Showing such preponderance of evidence for appropriate blood on the Shroud, and in the right places, would be a big step towards showing that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity.
3) Showing that, and spreading the word, would be quite useful.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Ok, I grant that what appears to be blood staining the shroud could actually be blood.

Now what?
 
Oh good grief...................
Primus, no shroudie has produced evidence of blood on the shroud; secundus, what would it matter if there was, the shroud is still a medieval fake (radiocarbon dating et cetera); ultimus, why are you starting another thread about the shroud?
 
The quickest of questions. I just need a yes/no answer. No research required.

Is every claim, fact, or assertion that you have made as part of your argument just as valid, as true, as useful, as important, and as relevant now as it was at the beginning of the thread?

...................
I am trying to determine if our counter arguments have caused you to reconsider the value of any single individual piece of evidence (such as the seven labs scheduled, but three labs used).
 
Last edited:
Wondering what an example of inappropriate blood would be? Blood that doesn't match Jesus's DNA, maybe?
 
Garrette said:
When you say "this thread" what do you mean? The one we are currently discussing in? I am asking not to be snarky but because the way you wrote it usually indicates that the underlined word is a link to a separate thread, but your underlined word is not such a link.

My suggestions:

1. Don't try to address multiple issues; addressing even one has so far proven beyond you, so going for two will surely result in failure.

2. Stick with the C14

3. Specifically, and first, deal with the comments on the link you provided. You have been given specific reasons that the paper you were certain introduced reasonable doubt does not in fact do so. What are your responses to those comments?

Frankly, this last post of yours is just more of the same: I will now address what I have been saying I would address and am addressing, but I will not actually address it.

Your entire history is one of promising evidence and offering opinion followed by avoidance.
Click to expand...
I suspect Jabba intends to use a variation of the 'Gish gallop' to divert attention from his inability to provide supporting evidence for his assertions.
The whole radiocarbon issue is an excellent example of a PRATT.

Jabba said:
- First of all, tell me why you guys think that the members of STURP, as well as other scientists, presenting (what they call, at least) evidence and arguments for Shroud authenticity, are all a bunch of religious bigots. Give me citations and numbers.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? And how is it relevant to your inability to support your opinion that the radiocarbon dating of the shroud is incorrect?

dafydd said:
So you are not going to do anything. Nobody mentioned the word bigot. Deluded would be more accurate. How can you give numbers about bigotry?
Click to expand...
I suspect he's trying to divert attention.
 
Don't be so pessimystical

I'm sure OP will be riiiiight back with amazing evidence we haven't even heard of





any minute now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom