Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

I'm B-A-A-A-K!

- I'll be taking up where I left off.
- I'll be trying to show that the "stains" were real blood.
- I focus first on blood because I see its actuality as the first premise in an extended syllogism concluding that the carbon dating has to be flawed. I see this indirect syllogism as more persuasive than the direct evidence.
- I can hear the applause from here!
--- Jabba

 

[Resume]

I see this indirect syllogism as more persuasive than the direct evidence.
--- Jabba

Well of course you do.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'll be taking up where I left off.

Painted into a corner at the bottom of a 10 kilometre deep hole?

That'll end well.

 

[abaddon]

- I'll be taking up where I left off.
- I'll be trying to show that the "stains" were real blood.
- I focus first on blood because I see its actuality as the first premise in an extended syllogism concluding that the carbon dating has to be flawed. I see this indirect syllogism as more persuasive than the direct evidence.
- I can hear the applause from here!
--- Jabba

OK what about the carbon dating then.

 

[John Jones]

- I'll be taking up where I left off.
- I'll be trying to show that the "stains" were real blood.
- I focus first on blood because I see its actuality as the first premise in an extended syllogism concluding that the carbon dating has to be flawed. I see this indirect syllogism as more persuasive than the direct evidence.

[...]

Assuming the consequence so soon?

FAIL!

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I'll be taking up where I left off.
- I'll be trying to show that the "stains" were real blood.
- I focus first on blood because I see its actuality as the first premise in an extended syllogism concluding that the carbon dating has to be flawed. I see this indirect syllogism as more persuasive than the direct evidence.
- I can hear the applause from here!
--- Jabba

May I make a respectful, and hopeful, suggestion? Instead of "taking up where you left off", please consider dealing with actual, empirical, practical data.

In that light, I will bite. Do you offer any reason, other than the fact that a medieval artifact could not have been used to bury anyone in the first century BCE, that the ¹⁴C dating "has to be" "flawed"?

Please do not trot out the invisible, undetectable, perfectly contaminated rewoven "patch" argument. In what way, or ways, exactly, is the ¹⁴C dating "flawed"?


ETA
I would also advise you to be suspicious of "indirect syllogism", with its tendency to lapse into false equivocation. Follow:
1. When you are hungry, a ham sandwich is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than spending eternity in heaven.
3. Therefore, it follows without question that a ham sandwich is better than spending eternity in heaven.

 

[Akhenaten]

3. Therefore, it follows without question that a ham sandwich is better than spending eternity in heaven.

False, you say?

Hmm . . .

 

[tsig]

- I'll be taking up where I left off.
- I'll be trying to show that the "stains" were real blood.
- I focus first on blood because I see its actuality as the first premise in an extended syllogism concluding that the carbon dating has to be flawed. I see this indirect syllogism as more persuasive than the direct evidence.
- I can hear the applause from here!
--- Jabba

Ok, so it's real blood, now what?

 

[Pixel42]

I see this indirect syllogism as more persuasive than the direct evidence.

You understand that what you consider persuasive and what everyone else considers persuasive are likely to be two different things?

Unless you can give a good reason to question the carbon dating - i.e. unless you can show that there were errors in the way it was carried out - then no amount of circumstantial evidence is going to outweigh it.

 

[tsig]

May I make a respectful, and hopeful, suggestion? Instead of "taking up where you left off", please consider dealing with actual, empirical, practical data.

In that light, I will bite. Do you offer any reason, other than the fact that a medieval artifact could not have been used to bury anyone in the first century BCE, that the ¹⁴C dating "has to be" "flawed"?

Please do not trot out the invisible, undetectable, perfectly contaminated rewoven "patch" argument. In what way, or ways, exactly, is the ¹⁴C dating "flawed"?


ETA
I would also advise you to be suspicious of "indirect syllogism", with its tendency to lapse into false equivocation. Follow:
1. When you are hungry, a ham sandwich is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than spending eternity in heaven.
3. Therefore, it follows without question that a ham sandwich is better than spending eternity in heaven.

Can I have one of those heavenly ham sandwiches?

_(w/mustard?)

 

[Akri]

- I focus first on blood because I see its actuality as the first premise in an extended syllogism concluding that the carbon dating has to be flawed.

Why not just tell us what the entire syllogism is first? I for one would really like to know how you intend to go from "there's real blood" to "therefor the C14 dating is wrong", considering that real blood existed in the Middle Ages.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ok, so it's real blood, now what?

Well, according to the C14 dating it's blood from no earlier than the 14th century so, err . . .

 

[Slowvehicle]

False, you say?

Hmm . . .

Mighty One:
May this humble one remind the Pharaoh that a false syllogism does not necessarily result in a false conclusion?

...back to my labours...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Can I have one of those heavenly ham sandwiches?

_(w/mustard?)

What KIND of mustard? Answer carefully...

 

[Giordano]

Well, according to the C14 dating it's blood from no earlier than the 14th century so, err . . .

Exactly! Jabba, at best you can try to claim that it is real blood from someone crucified in the 14th century. You will need to disprove the 14C evidence at that point. Why not do it now? Unless, of course, you know you can't.

 

[Belz...]

- I'll be taking up where I left off.

Making laughable list-formatted posts.

- I can hear the applause from here!

I can see the trolling from here.

 

[Belz...]

Why not just tell us what the entire syllogism is first? I for one would really like to know how you intend to go from "there's real blood" to "therefor the C14 dating is wrong", considering that real blood existed in the Middle Ages.

Aw, come on. You know full well that Jabba has no intention of providing such a syllogism, right ? "I'll do it soon" is not a very convincing promise.

 

[zooterkin]

What KIND of mustard? Answer carefully...

Colman's English, of course.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Colman's English, of course.

Your answer has found favor, but the path of heresy is wide, and the Way of Truth is strait...

What. Kind. of. Cheese?

 

[Akhenaten]

Mighty One:
May this humble one remind the Pharaoh that a false syllogism does not necessarily result in a false conclusion?

...back to my labours...

Joy is in the ears that hear, wise ATV.

Have a cookie.

What KIND of mustard? Answer carefully...

There is only Hot English. Everything else calling itself mustard is lying its lid off.