-
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
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Jabba, that stuff - all of it - is just pointless. Regardless of what you want to call indirect and direct, that's not how the rest of the world works, only your tiny (within your own mind, singular even) portion of it.
None of this has any bearing on demonstrating that the conclusive C14 testing shows you've wasted decades of your life on this unfortunate quest. This is very sad really - your posts show a man stuck in a fantasy, trying harder and harder to justify his beliefs but each time running full force into reality.
Forget indirect/direct, none of that has any chance of showing the C14 results are wrong - everyone but you (and crackpots) can see it.
My advice is the same you've heard over and over again - either give scientific evidence (not this lawyering crap) to suggest the C14 is wrong, or give up your belief and accept you've been wrong all these decades. I know it's hard - many of us have had to go through the same thing, where we spent decades as believers, only to finally conclude all of it was just smoke, mirrors, and lies..
Reality awaits you sir - can you come back to it? Do you have the courage to admit you were wrong?
None of this has any bearing on demonstrating that the conclusive C14 testing shows you've wasted decades of your life on this unfortunate quest. This is very sad really - your posts show a man stuck in a fantasy, trying harder and harder to justify his beliefs but each time running full force into reality.
Forget indirect/direct, none of that has any chance of showing the C14 results are wrong - everyone but you (and crackpots) can see it.
My advice is the same you've heard over and over again - either give scientific evidence (not this lawyering crap) to suggest the C14 is wrong, or give up your belief and accept you've been wrong all these decades. I know it's hard - many of us have had to go through the same thing, where we spent decades as believers, only to finally conclude all of it was just smoke, mirrors, and lies..
Reality awaits you sir - can you come back to it? Do you have the courage to admit you were wrong?
Whether or not someone has made a replica of the cloth has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the dating.
1000 replicas don't make the dating correct and zero replicas don't make it incorrect.
Just hit us with the evidence that the dating is incorrect.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
He never will. If he's not trolling then I don't know what to call it.
Than slow down. This is a discussion forum. We've waited months for evidence--we can certainly wait a few minutes while you format your posts into something legible.
This is a completely artificial distinction made entirely in your mind, unsupported by anything outside of your say-so and clearly designed to obstruct the conversation.
Either provide the amount of contamination necessary to make a 1st century cloth date from the 14th century, or admit that you don't know what you're talking about. All of this nonsense with direct vs. indirect evidence is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that you're so far out of your depth that you don't even know how far out of your depth you are.
So....absolutely nothing. You KNOW that the image has nothing to do with C14 dating, but you insist that it does anyway.
To add to that, you support this notion by sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when we present definitive proof that you're wrong (and someone re-creating the shroud is definitive proof--meaning incontrovertible proof, evidence that can ONLY support a SINGLE conclusions--that the shroud can be faked). Last chance, Jabba: Either provide the amount of contamination necessary for a 1st century cloth to give an age of the 14th century, or admit that you simply don't know, or I'm done. Your dishonesty, evasions, and obvious obfuscations are simply too annoying to continue with--they paint the picture of someone clearly unwilling to listen to anything anyone who doesn't agree with him has to say, and people like that aren't worth wasting time on. The peanut gallery already has this info, so there's absolutely no benefit to continuing this discussion if you're not even going to be honest.
This is nonsense, but continue...
If my cat would learn that when it's raining at the back door, it's raining at every other external door, I'd have a more peaceful evening. But she will not learn that, and you do not have any such evidence. So why do you bring it up, except as a distraction from the uncomfortable reality of the carbon dating results?
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bus. Even if no modern day person has yet worked out exactly how to recreate certain 'critical aspects' of the shroud (given the three (I think) links to people who have made shrouds using mediaeval methods I do not agree with your contention here), that has no probative dating value. The method of making, whatever it was, could have been used in the 14th Century just as it could have been used in the 1st century. But you still don't have a shred of evidence which serves to undermine the carbon dating results no matter how you try to twist what little information you do have.
Blood on the shroud - makes no difference to the date
No blood on the shroud - makes no difference to the date
Modern day scientists/artists haven't yet recreated critical aspects of the shroud - makes no difference to the date
Modern day scientists/artists have recreated critical aspects of the shroud - makes no difference to the date
Shroud was produced by supernatural means - first you need to show evidence for the supernatural (good luck with that), AND that this supernatural method occurred in the first century and not the 14th century.
All you are left with is the carbon dating, and your sincere wish for this to be "the real thing". Faith is by definition belief without evidence, so it should make no difference to your faith whether the shroud dates from the 1st or the 14th century.
I understand how hard it is to have such a mountain of compelling evidence for a 14th century date for the shroud, and nothing but faith and hope (and a refusal to accept facts) on the side of a first century date. I don't underestimate how difficult it has to be to accept reality, when everything you have clung to for a lifetime turns out to be based on the skill of some talented mediaeval forger. All I can do is remind you that your holy book does say "the truth will set you free". I don't believe in any God, but I can't accept that a God would want his followers to believe in a forgery, or for them to be dishonest.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
And you're always wrong.
Have you considered the possibility that these two things might be related?
Of course that's one of your claims. If it was legitimate it would allow you keep introducing all of your irrelevant nonsense about reproductions and bloodstains and whatnot as though they had some bearing on the issue.
But it's not legitimate. It's a clumsy dodge, and blind freddy could see through it.
Yeah, we know, because you've said it about 50 times.
Still wrong though.
Jabba, your article doesn't address dating whatsoever. It at best shows that the techniques used to reproduce it weren't quite right. That's it. It does not at all help us determine which century it was made in. And even if we never come up with any tehnique that reproduces it perfectly and never figure out how it was made, it will have no impact on the fact that it's from the 14th century. It would just show that these people in the 14th century were doing something really interesting. For this reason, you will never, ever be able to prove that the shroud is from the first century through arguing about the technique of manufacture. Heck, even if you somehow proved the carbon dating to be completely wrong in other ways, I still have no idea how this article would help us to date it at all. It's therefore a useless path to go down.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
One on One
Dinwar,
- If you will take the job of spokesperson for your side, I will do my best to effectively answer all your q/c's, one at a time. I had asked you to do that before, but you didn't respond.
Everyone else,
- If Dinwar doesn't want the job, would anyone else accept it?
- This will never be a level playing field, as all the potential spectators have already made up their minds as to who is right -- and, it isn't me. But, "one on one" would be a big step towards reducing the angle I have to negotiate.
- Give me a chance, and you'll see that I'm not trying to avoid the hard questions.
--- Jabba
Dinwar,
- If you will take the job of spokesperson for your side, I will do my best to effectively answer all your q/c's, one at a time. I had asked you to do that before, but you didn't respond.
Everyone else,
- If Dinwar doesn't want the job, would anyone else accept it?
- This will never be a level playing field, as all the potential spectators have already made up their minds as to who is right -- and, it isn't me. But, "one on one" would be a big step towards reducing the angle I have to negotiate.
- Give me a chance, and you'll see that I'm not trying to avoid the hard questions.
--- Jabba
Your evasion is noted.Jabba said:
Science isn't about each side picking an advocate and letting those two duke it out. ALL OF US have presented arguments against your ideas, and for you to be right you must be able to respond to ALL OF THEM. It sucks, believe me--but science isn't nice.
We've given you more than 40 pages of chances. The fact that you can't even answer a basic question means you've got nothing worth saying.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
As unlikely as that is, it's not a decision any one person here can take, including you.
This is a public forum, open to whoever feels like participating
And why do you think that might be?
Why on Earth would you entertain the notion that your choice to defend the indefensible confers upon you a right to an expectation that people won't attack your position?
What a ridiculous idea.
Like you're doing right now, you mean?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
By the way, what in the name of Isis are q/c's?
Not just a cookie, you win a muffin.
Jabba, if all the people you encounter here are focused on evidence, it matters not whether you converse with one or hundreds. You will still find yourself in the position of having to address the carbon dating results. Nothing you have said thus far casts any doubt on those results. It's an open forum so you don't get to limit anyone's participation. You will find that another forty pages of you dodging every question will end up with several people getting fed up with the dishonesty, as a couple of people have already done.
Carbon dating. Address that.
Jabba, if all the people you encounter here are focused on evidence, it matters not whether you converse with one or hundreds. You will still find yourself in the position of having to address the carbon dating results. Nothing you have said thus far casts any doubt on those results. It's an open forum so you don't get to limit anyone's participation. You will find that another forty pages of you dodging every question will end up with several people getting fed up with the dishonesty, as a couple of people have already done.
Carbon dating. Address that.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Jabba, you hardly need one representative for this. The entire thread, the issue has been carbon dating. You have been repeatedly asked to provide peer reviewed scientific refutation of this carbon dating, and you have yet to do so. You've also been asked to show your understanding of this dating method by stating how much carbon would have to have been added to a first century item to make it look like it was from the 14th, and you have completely ignored that question. Unless you can deal with these directly, then you will never actually be able to refute our main objection to a first century date.
1. You are always in a hurry? Got to keep ahead of those glaciers, huh?
2. Even if you could prove that no one can recreate certain critical aspects of the Shroud, it would in NO WAY provide ANY EVIDENCE that the 14C dating was wrong, direct or indirect, significant or meaningless!
First, I must say that the image on the Shroud has been, for the most part, convincingly reproduced, and the people who deny that is true are not holding themselves to the same level of rigorous proof and evidence that the image recreators have achieved. Also, as you know, the image is the wrong proportion to be that of a real imprinted shroud that laid on a dead body.
But more important (and I am repeating what other people have told you) EVEN IF THE IMAGE WAS A MIRACLE THAT CANNOT BE REPRODUCED TODAY, EVEN IF IT HAD REAL BLOOD ON IT, the carbon dating still proves it cannot be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. IT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF CHRIST'S DEATH! Perhaps it was the cloak of Muhammad, who lived at approximately the correct time, and it was magically transformed into an image when Mohammad ascended to heaven? Maybe it is an image of a Buddhist monk who achieved nirvana. But it can't be the burial shroud of Jesus. Maybe you are following the wrong religion? Unless you can convincingly prove that the carbon dating is incorrect (which repeating your debunked arguments will not achieve) you have no where to go from here.
Last edited:
Okay, this post alone pushes me over the top. I am out of here. You have discredited yourself and your cause completely and repeatedly, and worse still, become completing boring to me. I see only a series of dishonest posts and delaying tactics trying to yank our chain. I even wrote part of a prior post in ALL UPPER CASE; may the Flying Spaghetti Monster forgive me! I must quit before I ruin my keyboard with my head banging.
- Status