Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[wardenclyffe]

Is there a link to the shroud believers' take on why there's a Vatican conspiracy to accept the C14 dating? I'm sure that that's an entertaining read.

Ward

 

[Jabba]

Ward,
- Personally, I don't know of any who believe in Shroud authenticity that also believe in a Vatican conspiracy.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Effective Discussion

- Can someone point me to an effective discussion between people who start out with basic disagreements re the controversial issue they're discussing?
--- Jabba

 

[dafydd]

- Can someone point me to an effective discussion between people who start out with basic disagreements re the controversial issue they're discussing?
--- Jabba

You've given up on finding evidence that refutes the C14 dating? Very wise of you. Attempted derail noted.

 

[Dinwar]

- Can someone point me to an effective discussion between people who start out with basic disagreements re the controversial issue they're discussing?

http://www.amazon.com/Rex-Crater-Doom-Walter-Alvarez/dp/0375702105

http://scign.jpl.nasa.gov/learn/plate2.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Yes, one or two.

Secondly, it's not me who's blocking this discussion. You're saying that there's enough contamination on the shroud to make it date from the 14th century, despite actually being from the 1st century. This translates to "there is X [insert units here] of contamination". I'm not asking for the sources (yet). I'm not even asking for proof that it's THERE. I'm just asking you to fill in the blank and solve for X. YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT HINGES ON THIS POINT, yet I've had to point out the very existence of this question to you, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Answer the question, admit you can't, admit that you're unwilling to do so, or keep evading the issue YOU RAISED and destroy your credibility--and, by association, the credibility of the shroudie group--more and more each post. I'm sorry, but the nature of your arguments permits you no other options. And don't get mad at me--I'm merely pointing it out.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Can someone point me to an effective discussion between people who start out with basic disagreements re the controversial issue they're discussing?
--- Jabba

What's that got to do with the Shroud of Turin? There's no contrversy involved in that at all.

 

[pakeha]

...
- Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Is this where the peer-reviewed version of the paper was published?
- If so, please be more specific as to how to confirm it. I thought that the paper I offered was peer-reviewed only very recently.
--- Jabba

No. That site is where the shroudie blog says the paper comes from.
I was quoting your own source.
Who told you the paper was peer-reviewed?
Is it the same person who fed you the paper from that Shroud Congress in Valencia?

Is there a link to the shroud believers' take on why there's a Vatican conspiracy to accept the C14 dating? I'm sure that that's an entertaining read.

Shroudies haven't worked their way through to that conclusion yet, wardenclyffe.
Jabba has been repeatedly requested to explain why, in light of the fact the Vatican has no problem accepting the C14 dating, the TS supporters carry on contesting the medieval source of the artefact.
They claim there are serious problems with the sample, etc., yet cannot explain why the Vatican accepts the dating of the TS to the 14th century.

... You're saying that there's enough contamination on the shroud to make it date from the 14th century, despite actually being from the 1st century. This translates to "there is X [insert units here] of contamination". I'm not asking for the sources (yet). I'm not even asking for proof that it's THERE. I'm just asking you to fill in the blank and solve for X. YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT HINGES ON THIS POINT, yet I've had to point out the very existence of this question to you, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Answer the question, admit you can't, admit that you're unwilling to do so, or keep evading the issue YOU RAISED and destroy your credibility--and, by association, the credibility of the shroudie group--more and more each post. I'm sorry, but the nature of your arguments permits you no other options. And don't get mad at me--I'm merely pointing it out.

It's a fair cop.
Dinwar is explaining why the 'controversy' simply doesn't exist, Jabba.
It's really time to address that issue or find a Shroudie who has done so.

 

[Aepervius]

- Can someone point me to an effective discussion between people who start out with basic disagreements re the controversial issue they're discussing?
--- Jabba

There can be no discussion when you refuse to accept basic arithmetical premise.
Here are the fact :
* independent labs found a date in 13th-14th century
* those date are the one the shroud begin to be mentioned
* the shroud was seen as a hoax by authority of that time
* the shroud is not seen as authentic by current roman catholic authority today either
* you pretend that there has been contamination, but are unable to arithmetically say how much 14C was necessary to produce such a contamination as to make the shroud appear 1300 year younger
* even if you suddenly found a way to calculate that amount, you would have to find a source for such a quantity of 14C, if you pretend it is smoke particle for example you would have to calculate the amount of smoke, and then explain why the shroud sample did not appear toroughly blackened by the amount of 14C/12C necessary for such a contamination.
* then you would have to provide evidence for such a contamination. And no shrouddies guesses do not count as evidence

Etc...

Basically you refuse to see reality of the fact. Since you refuse to acknowledge the fact, there can be IMHO no discussion possible whatsoever. It is a bit like trying to discuss counting from 1 to 10 with somebody refusing to acknowledge that 1+1=2 and that person pretending a polite discussion is required.

No. Accept the fact then refute them with evidence, otherwise youa re just BELIEVING as in FAITH and refusing to face reality. it is your prerogative, but don't expect reality to acknowledge your version.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Ward,
- Personally, I don't know of any who believe in Shroud authenticity that also believe in a Vatican conspiracy.
--- Jabba

Why, then, would the Vatican (which has everything to gain if the shroud is authentic) accept the C14 dating? Do shroud believers think that the Vatican is completely incompetent and the shroud should be taken away from them? Other than conspiracy or incompetence, what other possible explanation is there? I mean what explanation other than the C14 date is correct? Because apparently that's not an option for some reason.

Ward

 

[MRC_Hans]

- Can someone point me to an effective discussion between people who start out with basic disagreements re the controversial issue they're discussing?
--- Jabba

Plenty of that, here in this forum. All it takes is that both parts actually listen to the other part. The thing you perceive as incivility towards you (actually, it is mostly just people taking you to task for your failure to address their arguments) is exactly due to that: You are constantly evading the main arguments. You are constantly trying to cloud the debate with irrelevant or unimportant arguments.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

What's that got to do with the Shroud of Turin? There's no contrversy involved in that at all.

Good point!

Hans

 

[catsmate]

1) Unless we humans figure out a way to effectively discuss controversial issues with those with whom we disagree, the world “as we know it” is not going to last much longer.

Start by not repetitively posting debunked nonsense and lying.

2) One critical step -- probably the FIRST -- towards developing effective discussion is for the two sides to address each other respectfully (even when they actually think poorly of each other’s intelligence and/or motivation).

Start by not repetitively posting debunked nonsense and lying.

- I came here to see if we could develop some effective discussion.

No. You came to pontificate and proselytse.

 

[uk_dave]

Do shroud believers think that the Vatican is completely incompetent and the shroud should be taken away from them?

Just out of curiosity, why does the vatican retain possession of it if they don't believe it to be a holy relic? Is it now classed as 'art', or maybe just too damaging to the tourist industry to let go?

 

[Marduk]

Just out of curiosity, why does the vatican retain possession of it if they don't believe it to be a holy relic? Is it now classed as 'art', or maybe just too damaging to the tourist industry to let go?

b

 

[abaddon]

Just out of curiosity, why does the vatican retain possession of it if they don't believe it to be a holy relic? Is it now classed as 'art', or maybe just too damaging to the tourist industry to let go?

Goes along with the rest of the art retained by the Nazi idiot Pope in charge. Why let go of stuff others will pay a fortune for?

 

[kerikiwi]

Why let go of stuff others will pay a fortune for?

In order to have the fortune.

 

[pakeha]

It's a sign!
While investigating the Amorites, I came across the following reference to the Vatican's treasures.
Check out #5.
It's a sign!

 

[Aepervius]

Just out of curiosity, why does the vatican retain possession of it if they don't believe it to be a holy relic? Is it now classed as 'art', or maybe just too damaging to the tourist industry to let go?

People give up money to visit and buy souvenir. Call me callous or cynical, but why would the catholic church give up a source of income, even if they know it is an hoax ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

People give up money to visit and buy souvenir. Call me callous or cynical, but why would the catholic church give up a source of income, even if they know it is an hoax ?

Because they are here to serve God, not make money?

.....

Wait...

Mmmm.



Just carry on.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Effective Discussion

Plenty of that, here in this forum. All it takes is that both parts actually listen to the other part. The thing you perceive as incivility towards you (actually, it is mostly just people taking you to task for your failure to address their arguments) is exactly due to that: You are constantly evading the main arguments. You are constantly trying to cloud the debate with irrelevant or unimportant arguments.

Hans

Hans,
- Just point me to one of those effective discussions on this forum between people who start out with basic disagreements re the controversial issue they're discussing.
--- Jabba