Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[The Don]

- If you're referring to my earlier claim to address one's first Q/C first, you're right -- I addressed your second claim first instead. But, that was because I took no issue with your first Q/C...
- In the future, I'll just try to address the included issue that seems most 'pressing' first.

To be honest, looking at this thread it seems that you never actually address anything substantive.

Even if you were somehow able to prove that the stains on the cloth are blood - and remember every single attempt you have made to do this has been torn to shreds - it doesn't provide any evidence of the cloth's authenticity.

Instead of presenting evidence for the cloth's authenticity, you have instead chosen to waste years:

• Attempting to get people to conform to a bizarre debating approach of your own devising where the issue lies not with the approach but with the complete absence of evidence from one side of the debate
• Complaining about having to respond to people rather than responding to people - which would have taken no longer
• Feigning offence for preceived insults
• Discussing the minutae of what throwaway phrases could have, should have and would have meant
• Recycling the same tired, discredited, debunked rubbish as if the participants in this thread have no memory

 

[Slowvehicle]

- If you're referring to my earlier claim to address one's first Q/C first, you're right -- I addressed your second claim first instead. But, that was because I took no issue with your first Q/C...
- In the future, I'll just try to address the included issue that seems most 'pressing' first.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

The "most pressing issue" is that you have yet to present a single bit of evidence that indicates that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

While I am happy to continue discussing the "blood" on the CIQ with you (or, I should say, reiterating things about the "blood" to which you have yet to respond), the presence or absence of "blood" on the CIQ says nothing about the age of the CIQ (as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly).

...not to mention, you have been waffling about holding up your end since last May, or earlier:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10679309#post10679309

With this reminder, I remain,

Indefatigably yours & ct.

 

[pgwenthold]

Even if you were somehow able to prove that the stains on the cloth are blood - and remember every single attempt you have made to do this has been torn to shreds - it doesn't provide any evidence of the cloth's authenticity.

To throw in my dead horse:

Even if you were somehow able to prove that the stains on the cloth are blood, how do you rule out the possibility that it was merely the burial cloth for someone who died 700 years ago?

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?

No, you are not trying to answer the question. You have been actively trying to avoid answering it.

Regarding the authenticity, you have it completely backwards. Hypothetically, if the shroud were to be proven authentic no one would be asking about the age. The age would be inherent. You are trying to use circular reasoning to account for the age question by implying authenticity. Understand that the purpose of everyone asking you to provide evidence for the age is that it is a much much lower threshold than providing evidence for authenticity. Showing the age of the shroud is 2000 years old is the simplest and first step necessary to ultimately showing authenticity.

Keep in mind that I have been asking the question because you said the blood is where you will start in proving the age of 2000 years. So it is only natural for you to clarify how the mere presence of blood can possibly be used to infer age.

What you want is to say that the presence of blood is consistent with authenticity. This may be true. However, what you fail to grasp is that the presence of blood is also consistent with in-authenticity. So it ultimately gets you no where.

How does the presence of blood affect the age of the shroud?

This is the question being asked. It is OK to state that blood cannot be used to determine the age of the shroud. If there is a way, please say so, but do not change the question so you avoid the answer.

Monza,

- Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic? If so, you should accept that that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

- That's how "the presence of blood (would) affect the age of the shroud."

 

[Stuart]

Monza,

- Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic? If so, that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

- That's how "the presence of blood (would) affect the age of the shroud."

No, not one iota.

I have blood on a bandage at home, is that 2000 years old? 700 years old? I'll give you a clue, I bought it last week.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Monza,

- Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic? If so, you should accept that that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

- That's how "the presence of blood (would) affect the age of the shroud."

 

[John Jones]

It's a new day, so let me state this and get it out of the way:

Jabba, you have presented no evidence for a 2000 year old shroud.
No, the balance is not tilted toward authentic even a little.

The preponderance of evidence leads the honest seeker of truth to conclude the CIQ is not authentic.

 

[pgwenthold]

Monza,

- Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic? If so, you should accept that that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

Assuming there is blood on the shroud, how do you know it is the burial cloth of Jesus and not the burial cloth of someone who died 700 years ago?

Keep in mind, being a burial cloth of someone who died 700 years ago is a lot more consistent with the evidence, including the weave of the cloth and the 14C dating. So if there were blood on the cloth, being a burial cloth from 700 years ago seems far more likely, wouldn't you say?

 

[John Jones]

Monza,

- Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic? If so, you should accept that that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

- That's how "the presence of blood (would) affect the age of the shroud."

NO!

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

 

[zooterkin]

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

You can't explain what isn't there. Are you reading the replies you're getting?

 

[jond]

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

Perhaps you should read what he had to say on the subject? His opinion is that blood in the shroud is indicative of fraud.

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

YOU
ARE
NOT
USING
LOGIC.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic?

Asked and answered. You were told the difference between necessary and sufficiency in evidence. Satisfying a necessity is not probative toward a specific affirmative conclusion, although failing to satisfy it proves it's false. The identification of blood on the cloth is necessary, but not sufficient.

If so, you should accept that that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

No. There is no connection between there being blood on the cloth and it being 2,000 years old. They are not rationally connected.

That's how "the presence of blood (would) affect the age of the shroud."

You've been shopping this asinine fallacy around now for two weeks and ignoring all discussion to the contrary.

As is typical of your highly dishonest approach, you are equivocating the term "authentic" to mean different things in different parts of your argument. And the outcome of this is the circular reasoning I and others are attempting in vain to make you aware of.

I join with others in observing that you display zero interest in having a substantive debate.

 

[JayUtah]

f so, could you help me explain my logic?

There is no valid logic in your approach. Why are you reaching out to Hugh when there are a dozen people here all telling you what's logically wrong with the approach you're taking? How is this Effective Debate™ if you pay attention only to people you think are your allies?

 

[Mojo]

The identification of blood on the cloth is necessary, but not sufficient.

Actually, it isn't even necessary, since the burial practices of the day would have involved washing the body before wrapping it in the shroud.

Whether blood is present or absent from the shroud, it has no value as far as establishing authenticity is concerned, because either is consistent with both authenticity and inauthenticity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Monza,

- Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic? If so, you should accept that that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

OK, OK, perhaps if we play it that way ....

Finding blood would not be positive evidence, but it would, at least, also mean that there could be said to be less negative evidence.

.... Yeah, that is about as far as one could go.

So what, Jabba? Currently, the available data, from various examinations of the actual Shroud of Turin do NOT yield any proof of the presense of blood. The evidence is NOT THERE.

What will you do about that? With no available data, how could you show that there is blood on the shroud?

Hans

 

[Mojo]

As is typical of your highly dishonest approach, you are equivocating the term "authentic" to mean different things in different parts of your argument.

Did you notice that he recently shifted from claiming that the preponderance of evidence favours authenticity to claiming that the preponderance of evidence favours the presence of blood? without providing any actual evidence, of course.

 

[Mojo]

OK, OK, perhaps if we play it that way ....

Finding blood would not be positive evidence, but it would, at least, also mean that there could be said to be less negative evidence.

Nope. See the previous post.