Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-01-2002, 01:34 PM | #231 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 1,844
|
leonarde
Despite 10 pages of links, nothing you have posted can counter the obvious – it’s a rubbing from a low relief sculpture. And poorly rendered at that. Sincerely, A lurker. |
04-01-2002, 01:54 PM | #232 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
|
The point is:
1)evidence: I'm the one citing the books (Heller's and Nickell's were cited by me here), the pertinent sections of Luke and John's Gospels, URLs (I didn't count how many and some I did post twice but at least 15 to 20 different documents), forensics manuals (2 so far). I'm also giving excerpts from some of those URLs (if they have a format and/or a short enough section/abstract to warrant it. MY opinions, in other words, are based on having done some basic research. 2)interpretation of evidence: you keep claiming that I and EVERY forensic pathologist who finds the Shroud compatible with a real Crucifixion victim is "biased" or has an "agenda". That would have some resonance if your own anti-religious bias were not so crude and bald. 3)silence: look, we're all ignorant of certain subjects: I'm so ignorant of so MANY subjects that it sometimes makes my head spin. The fact that you are TOTALLY ignorant of the Shroud of Turin is no disgrace. What is a disgrace is the loudmouthed cussing and preaching (THINK DAMN YOU THINK )that you did in the early going (pages 4-6 or thereabouts). That you still at this late point in the thread cannot refrain from giving your uninformed opinions on subjects (forensics, the Bible etc.)that you know little to nothing about I find.....astonishing. 4)other persons: there are something like 5 other Shroud threads in the archives. The longest one, 8 pages, seems not to have stayed on topic for very long. This one has. If I can find a little more info about the Shroud, I shall post it here. Cheers! |
04-01-2002, 02:06 PM | #233 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
|
Posted by hyzer:
Quote:
Nickell's rubbing(s), which share only a tiny fraction of the features of the S of Turin, do you have any EVIDENCE that the S of Turin is a "rubbing"? |
|
04-01-2002, 02:14 PM | #234 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
|
Okay!
Assume the shroud is 1970 years old, conforms to biblical accounts, and all evidence attainable from the cloth concludes it was laid over a corpse consistant with Jesus' corpse as can be deduced from biblical accounts. Assume all that and what do you have? A cloth that was laid over a dead guy neary 2,000 years ago. And that would demonstrate the existance of a deity, because? |
04-01-2002, 02:19 PM | #235 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
|
Ooooow! A DIFFERENT question. Any takers?
|
04-01-2002, 02:20 PM | #236 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
|
Quote:
First, the volume increase that is quoted in the first part suggests that this section was talking about internal injuries. This volume would likely be enclosed (e.g. the peritoneal cavity or the pericardium), since it is talking about an *increase* in volume that results from passive body fluid equilibration in the *absence* of pulsatile pressure. A hemorrhage may be lethal without external production of blood (e.g. an aortic dissection). The second part of the quote is likely true, because of the large number of blood vessels in the scalp. However, the degree of bleeding would depend on the condition of the victim post-mortem. It is unclear from one sentence alone whether or not the victim being described died from the scalp wounds, or from some other cause. It amuses me that leonarde cites medical texts as he would from the Bible or some historical record (i.e. in bits, without complete understanding). Unless he has had medical training or a good fundamental grasp of physiology, leonarde is likely to miss the larger picture. Furthermore, to claim that a text in forensic pathology would apply generally to victims of crucifixion is at best wishful thinking. It would be akin to asking current medical textbooks to provide insight into blood-letting as a viable treatment. As pointed out, there are specific characteristics of death by crucifixion that are unlikely to be generalized in such statements as quoted above, especially from a text millenia after such practices. SC |
|
04-01-2002, 02:38 PM | #237 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
|
I have stated OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN on this
thread that crucifixion as a standard method of execution has not been practiced since the 5th Century. That is one of MANY MANY MANY small details which indicate that the Man of the Shroud died not later than the 5th Century. It ALSO means that physicians, even working medical examiners, can go thru 20, 30, even 40 year careers without encountering a single corpse of a crucifixion victim. That has ramifications for manuals written by even the best forensic pathologists: crucifixion leading to death happens so seldom in the modern world that: 1)only a modest amount of the details are known about the ANCIENT practice of crucifixion (much of it, ironically, from the century or so of wide interest in the Shroud of Turin). 2)treatment of the subject is cursory, at best, in most forensic pathology texts (where it is mentioned is in connection with slow asphyxiation death). My ONLY reason in consulting with a medically- oriented text in this regard was to try to determine whether ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES a large amount of post-mortem bleeding is IMPOSSIBLE (ie you wouldn't get it on a REAL shroud of a crucifixion victim). What I found in the forensics text in NO WAY proves that the S of Turin is authentic; it merely establishes that considerable postmortem blood is not NECESSARILY incompatible with the Shroud having enveloped a real crucifixion victim. |
04-01-2002, 02:55 PM | #238 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
|
Quote:
Quote:
SC |
||
04-01-2002, 03:09 PM | #239 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
|
Let's let the lurkers determine, based on the last
8 pages or so who is biased and who: 1)has LOOKED FOR evidence about the shroud and related matters. 2)has presented it in those pages. Cheers! |
04-01-2002, 04:43 PM | #240 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
|
And to be sure, we should also remind the lurkers to figure out who:
1) have provided evidence against the Shroud, 2) have analyzed all evidence with a critical viewpoint. 3) and who has merely taken quotes indiscriminately without actual regard to their content and their merits. EDIT: And most importantly, we should all encourage the lurkers to think for themselves and discover the truth independent of whatever anybody else has to say. SC [ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p> |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|