FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2002, 01:34 PM   #231
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 1,844
Thumbs down

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.
hyzer is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 01:54 PM   #232
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
Post

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!
leonarde is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 02:06 PM   #233
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
Post

Posted by hyzer:
Quote:
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.
Aside from Joe
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"?
leonarde is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 02:14 PM   #234
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
Post

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?
Hans is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 02:19 PM   #235
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
Post

Ooooow! A DIFFERENT question. Any takers?
leonarde is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 02:20 PM   #236
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Post

Quote:
It is sometimes difficult to know how much of a haemorrhage found at autopsy may be accounted for by post-mortem bleeding. There is little doubt that the volume may increase after death,but in most cases this is a small proportion of that which leaked under arterial pressure during life. [.....]External bleeding can continue after death, especially from the scalp, and particularly if the head is dependent after death.
This quote has likely been taken entirely out of context.

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
Principia is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 02:38 PM   #237
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
Post

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.
leonarde is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 02:55 PM   #238
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Post

Quote:
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...
And leonarde, our point is that you discuss the medical aspects of cruficixion without demonstrating any understanding of medicine or physiology. What do you know of the 'general principles' of forensic pathology applicable to crucifixions? Anyone can take quotes out of context too. Allow me to illustrate:
Quote:
leonarde: My ONLY reason ... in this regard ... is IMPOSSIBLE...
More than likely, you have shown unwittingly how impossible it is to be unbiased when analyzing this situation.

SC
Principia is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 03:09 PM   #239
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 1,603
Post

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!
leonarde is offline  
Old 04-01-2002, 04:43 PM   #240
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Post

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>
Principia is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:05 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.