Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Akhenaten said:
Sorry, I should have been clearer.

All I meant to say was that every sect of every religion seems to place a great deal of importance in its own particular magical objects, and the shroud of Turin just happens to be the object of adoration of the Shroudists, one of hundreds (thousands?) of denominations of Christianity.

I could probably conjecture that it's signally important to each of these denominations that they prove, "scientifically", that their magical objects are the holiest in order to demonstrate that they alone are the followers of the One True <insert religion>™.
Click to expand...

OK, if you view them as some sort of fetish sect and not just plain vanilla Christians, then, of course, shroud authenticity must be crucial *) to them. Well, that must be the explanation, thanks.

This also means that debating them is really unimportant: We will never convince them and their ambition to convince a wider audience is hopeless.

Hans

*) Ever thought of the Christian origin of the word 'crucial'?
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
This also means that debating them is really unimportant: We will never convince them and their ambition to convince a wider audience is hopeless.

Hans
Click to expand...


I should think this very thread would be ample evidence of the truth of that.

:)


MRC_Hans said:
*) Ever thought of the Christian origin of the word 'crucial'?
Click to expand...


Well. they did sort of pinch it from the Romans - crucio is Latin for 'to torture or torment'.

And the bizarreness of a religion adopting an instrument of torture as its symbol is something at which I've always marvelled.
 
Effective Debate

wardenclyffe said:
I think your excuses (bad memory, it's hard to keep up, etc.) are all valid excuses for why you are having difficulty in this thread. The excuses do not, however, provide any new or helpful information. The end result is indentical to someone who is ignoring points, misdirecting and misleading. I'm sorry you are struggling and I'm glad you are seeking help at that other forum...
Click to expand...
Ward,

- My claim is that I ignore points ONLY because I can't keep up with them. If somehow, it was accepted that I deal with just one point at a time, you'd see that I would do my best to deal with it and would let you know when I had no further arguments regarding that point...

- It's the "keepin up" that has several different reasons (that I've tried to describe before), but the primary reason has to do with the natural tendency for debates to expand, and for complex debates to expand exponentially -- to grow new argument branches, with new branches off old branches, etc. While I try to address one branch, it grows branches of its own -- which I now need to address, and one at a time.
- What we see as "points" tend to be "living branches" -- growing and producing their on sets of new branches that need addressing.

- Before I try to be more explicit about what specifically has happened here, can you tell me why the above excuse doesn't "fly" for you? To the extent that I can read my own mind, it does fly for me.

- Thanks.
--- Jabba
 
Why not just choose one point then?
Why the C14 dating is unreliable, for example.
And stick to it.
 
Dinwar said:
Just a minor quibble: The foundational disagreement between Jabba and the rest of us is methodological. We believe that the conclusion must follow the evidence, while Jabba has repeatedly admitted to believing that the proper way to examine archaeological questions is to first draw conclusions and then look for supporting evidence. The fact that our conclusions differ, and that we disagree on what data should be accepted or rejected, stems from that. To us, valid evidence is accurate and reproducible, and our conclusions stem from our interepretation of that evidence. To Jabba, valid evidence is whatever supports his a priori conclusions.
Click to expand...
That's probably a better way to put it. Jabba has a need to believe in the validity of the shroud and therefore interprets (or ignores) the evidence to suit this belief. Others here reason from the evidence to the conclusion.
 
Jabba said:
My claim is that I ignore points ONLY because I can't keep up with them.
Click to expand...
But this simply isn't true. You jump from point to point whenever you find yourself unable to answer the refutation of your arguments.

Jabba said:
If somehow, it was accepted that I deal with just one point at a time, you'd see that I would do my best to deal with it and would let you know when I had no further arguments regarding that point...
Click to expand...
We tried that remember? And you still dodged and evaded rather than honestly dealing with people.
 
Jabba said:
Ward,

- My claim is that I ignore points ONLY because I can't keep up with them. If somehow, it was accepted that I deal with just one point at a time, you'd see that I would do my best to deal with it and would let you know when I had no further arguments regarding that point...

- It's the "keepin up" that has several different reasons (that I've tried to describe before), but the primary reason has to do with the natural tendency for debates to expand, and for complex debates to expand exponentially -- to grow new argument branches, with new branches off old branches, etc. While I try to address one branch, it grows branches of its own -- which I now need to address, and one at a time.
- What we see as "points" tend to be "living branches" -- growing and producing their on sets of new branches that need addressing.

- Before I try to be more explicit about what specifically has happened here, can you tell me why the above excuse doesn't "fly" for you? To the extent that I can read my own mind, it does fly for me.

- Thanks.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
It's not a complex debate. The C14 dating stands; you have admitted you can find no issues with it.

The speculations regarding how or why the C14 dating might possibly be in error come from your side of the debate, not ours. We merely respond to them and point out that they have no substance.


As regards the excuses that don't fly, I can't speak for anyone else, but for me they don't fly because you came here talking about your 20 years of research; you have recently added that you now spend four hours a day on it. With all those years and all those hours, there is no excuse for you not to have the basic information easily at hand. You don't.


ETA: Your post on the other board proves the point. On this thread, the vast majority of your posts are simply descriptions of what you intend to present (but rarely get around to presenting). After spending days here about how you would present objections on the other board, what you actually presented had exactly nothing of substance in it; it was simply complaints about us and descriptions of how you wished the debate would proceed.

Your argument, such as it is, is an absolute joke. And that is not an insult; it is an observation. Moreover, it is an observation of your argument, not of you, so you will compound the lies you have already told if you lump this statement into that group you falsely call insults.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Ward,

- My claim is that I ignore points ONLY because I can't keep up with them. If somehow, it was accepted that I deal with just one point at a time, you'd see that I would do my best to deal with it and would let you know when I had no further arguments regarding that point...

- It's the "keepin up" that has several different reasons (that I've tried to describe before), but the primary reason has to do with the natural tendency for debates to expand, and for complex debates to expand exponentially -- to grow new argument branches, with new branches off old branches, etc. While I try to address one branch, it grows branches of its own -- which I now need to address, and one at a time.
- What we see as "points" tend to be "living branches" -- growing and producing their on sets of new branches that need addressing.

- Before I try to be more explicit about what specifically has happened here, can you tell me why the above excuse doesn't "fly" for you? To the extent that I can read my own mind, it does fly for me.

- Thanks.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

You have used this excuse before, you even asked for a single topic to pursue. When told to concentrate on the C14 data, you immediately started talking about the possibility of blood stains.

But your last sentence seems to encapsulate everything you do here. You have a belief; well that's fine but trying out debating tactics to prove your belief is not fine, it is at the very least, intellectually dishonest.
 
catsmate1 said:
Yes but they did downplay Bonnet-Eymard's claims, suggesting they were just queries rather than a full blown conspiracy theory articulated by a representative of "The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twentieth Century"
Click to expand...

Very true, catsmate1.
To be honest, I'd have done the same in their shoes.

I read over Bonnet-Eymard's article at the website of the CCRTC:
http://www.crc-internet.org/1401-ii-the-conclusion-of-a-new-trial.html

It inspired me to partake of a second breakfast.

ETA
Sorry, I attributed that article to Bonnet-Eymard, when in fact it's a product of
Abbé Georges de Nantes
Brother Bruno of Jesus
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Ward,

- My claim is that I ignore points ONLY because I can't keep up with them. If somehow, it was accepted that I deal with just one point at a time, you'd see that I would do my best to deal with it and would let you know when I had no further arguments regarding that point...
Click to expand...


You seem to think that your having no further arguments regarding any particular point is the same as saying that the point remains unresolved.

This is obviously incorrect.


Jabba said:
- It's the "keepin up" that has several different reasons (that I've tried to describe before), but the primary reason has to do with the natural tendency for debates to expand, and for complex debates to expand exponentially -- to grow new argument branches, with new branches off old branches, etc.
Click to expand...


Your failure to keep up has but one reason - the poor horse you're on and which you insist on so mercilessly flogging has been dead since 1988.


Jabba said:
While I try to address one branch, it grows branches of its own -- which I now need to address, and one at a time.
- What we see as "points" tend to be "living branches" -- growing and producing their on sets of new branches that need addressing.
Click to expand...


Perhaps gardening would be a more productive use of your time.


Jabba said:
- Before I try to be more explicit about what specifically has happened here, can you tell me why the above excuse doesn't "fly" for you?
Click to expand...


That it's got nothing at all to do with the actual situation here is the first thing that springs to mind.

That you prefer to spend most of your time discussing the discussion at the expense of dealing with the single issue of presenting proper evidence for why we should doubt the reliability of the C14 dating is probably your biggest problem, although there are many others.


Jabba said:
To the extent that I can read my own mind, it does fly for me.
Click to expand...


That's about as far from being an objective assessment as it's possible to be.
 
catsmate1 said:
But this simply isn't true. You jump from point to point whenever you find yourself unable to answer the refutation of your arguments.


We tried that remember? And you still dodged and evaded rather than honestly dealing with people.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Jabba, most of the last pages and pages in this thread have urged you to focus on one point, the 14C dating! And who among the posters has desperately sought to divert attention from this point to irrelevant ones, such as the "blood" stains? You!

Sorry, Jabba, the transparency of your excuses is quite evident.
 
Akhenaten said:
You seem to think that your having no further arguments regarding any particular point is the same as saying that the point remains unresolved.

This is obviously incorrect.



Your failure to keep up has but one reason - the poor horse you're on and which you insist on so mercilessly flogging has been dead since 1988.



That you prefer to spend most of your time discussing the discussion at the expense of dealing with the single issue of presenting proper evidence for why we should doubt the reliability of the C14 dating is probably your biggest problem, although there are many others.
Click to expand...

Jabba,
These points are exactly the reasons you have lost all credibility here. If you hope to restore your credibility please read and think about these points, and then either provide legitimate data that overturns the 14C results, or admit that you cannot.
 
Garrette said:
It's not a complex debate. The C14 dating stands; you have admitted you can find no issues with it.

The speculations regarding how or why the C14 dating might possibly be in error come from your side of the debate, not ours. We merely respond to them and point out that they have no substance.


As regards the excuses that don't fly, I can't speak for anyone else, but for me they don't fly because you came here talking about your 20 years of research; you have recently added that you now spend four hours a day on it. With all those years and all those hours, there is no excuse for you not to have the basic information easily at hand. You don't.


ETA: Your post on the other board proves the point. On this thread, the vast majority of your posts are simply descriptions of what you intend to present (but rarely get around to presenting). After spending days here about how you would present objections on the other board, what you actually presented had exactly nothing of substance in it; it was simply complaints about us and descriptions of how you wished the debate would proceed.

Your argument, such as it is, is an absolute joke. And that is not an insult; it is an observation. Moreover, it is an observation of your argument, not of you, so you will compound the lies you have already told if you lump this statement into that group you falsely call insults.
Click to expand...

He spends all his time framing the argument rather than making the argument.
 
Jabba said:
- My claim is that I ignore points ONLY because I can't keep up with them. If somehow, it was accepted that I deal with just one point at a time, you'd see that I would do my best to deal with it and would let you know when I had no further arguments regarding that point...
Click to expand...
This isn't a valid claim. For over a month the only issue we tried to get you to address with the C14 issue. Your best wasn't at the level of a high school graduate in California. As for the last phrase, this is nothing more than yet another attempt to dishonestly control the conversation so as to give yourself an advantage. You demonstrably do not know enough about several of the topics here to know when they have been fully addressed. This is not an insult, but an observation--and since you demand we debate according to your opinions, your level of k nowledge on these topics is applicable.

- It's the "keepin up" that has several different reasons (that I've tried to describe before), but the primary reason has to do with the natural tendency for debates to expand, and for complex debates to expand exponentially --
Click to expand...
Except that this debate demonstrably hasn't. Very few points have been added in 85 pages. If you were honest and educated about the topics you'd see that several have been thoroughly addressed and that absent any new information there's no need to continue addressing them (they've all supported the hypothesis that the shroud is a 13th century fake, so you can't accept the data as true, but that's your problem, not a problem with debate).

Debates really only become complex when one or both sides attempt to muddy the waters, as you constantly attempt to do (and are attempting in this post). If you stick to the rule that all statements must be backed by independantly verifiable evidence, debates become really simple.

While I try to address one branch, it grows branches of its own -- which I now need to address, and one at a time.
Click to expand...
No, you don't. No one's put a gun to your head, and there has never been any rule of debate that I'm aware of that requires such an absurdity. This is nothing more than an attempt to make excuses for your lack of ability to address anything. It's the Nirvanah Fallacy--since you can't address anything, we're supposed to accept that you can't address anything.

- Before I try to be more explicit about what specifically has happened here,
Click to expand...
I'll go ahead and be very explicite for you: Your arguments were destroyed, you demonstrated a deplorable ignorance for someone who claims to have studied this for 20 years, you continue to ignore evidence whenever it doesn't support your pet conclusion, and you are attempting to force us to accept a style of debate you've specifically AND ADMITTEDLY designed to ignore evidence and to give yourself an advantage. The rest of us have refused to play along.
 
Evidence Against Carbon Dating

pakeha said:
Why not just choose one point then?
Why the C14 dating is unreliable, for example.
And stick to it.
Click to expand...
Pakeha,

- Up until a week ago (#3308), I had been addressing the evidence re the carbon dating pretty steadily. Since that time, I've made only four posts (not counting this one) -- one about the carbon dating (3379), one asking for computer help (3309), one just passing on my post over on the Porter blog (3371) and one about "Effective Debate" (3406, my current choice for sub-thread (your choice of sub-thread being "Carbon Dating")) and trying to answer the many claims that I ignore points for which I don't have answers.
- Probably, the real problem here has to do with the sparsity of time I've had to devote to this thread for the last couple of months. I won't bother with excuses for now.
- Anyway, my next post (with just a little bit of luck) will be something that I thought I had already posted, but apparently not. It will be about carbon dating/evidence against/peer-reviewed.

- Thanks for reminding me. I needed that.

--- Jabba
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom