Rational Ag

Lenny,

Aucune quantité de croyance ne fait à quelque chose un fait.

-Rational Ag

leonarde

Oui, c'est vrai mais je ne parlais jamais ici de la croyance: pas dans ce thread, pas dans le thread de 18 pages. Je parlais seulement des faits: les faits de la biologie, de la physique,
de la histoire.
Moi, je trouve que le atheisme fixe, ferme a la information nouvelle est aussi une forme de croyance......

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Rational Ag

Votre rêve au sujet de la monture de Turin est égal à la croyance. Juste parce que vous ignorez la réalité de la matière ne rend pas votre rêve véridique ou effectif. Aucune quantité de rêve ne fait à quelque chose un fait.

-Rational Ag

leonarde

Et vous comprenez quelquechose de ce sujet? Si oui, pourquoi vous n'avez pas participe dans le autre thread? Je cherchais longtemps une personne qui sait des faits de SoTurin. Seulement Jesse et Tercel ici sont capables de une discussion serieuse. Les autres......pfttt!!

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Tusitala

&lt;note to self&gt;

Do not state too much
Beware of the deconstruct
tears you to pieces

katerina

Depuis quand peut-on quantifier les rêves?

Ou bien cela était-il ton point?

leonarde

Koy posted: This, in my opinion, is the very problem: Koy thinks that "deconstructing" (ie mutilating the
thoughts, ideas, statements, and beliefs of someone) is a respectable thing. That explains his
"deconstruction" on the previous Shroud thread of the Shroud archaeologist Meacham: though I mostly stopped reading his long diatribes somewhere between pages 5 and 11 of that (18 page)Shroud of Turin thread, I was eventually called on by Asha'man to "explain" the "34 arterial wounds" that Koy invented. Even then he was bragging about deconstructing (or as he called it then "dicing" the archaeologist and those forensic pathologists whose work Meacham was presenting). When I, thoroughly confused by others' confusion, looked back on page 5 and compared it to what Meacham had
actually written I pointed it out (around page 12). FINALLY after much hemming and hawing, Koy admitted (on page 13?)that the 34 arterial wounds
were his "speculation".
NOW his apparent speculation is that ancient Jews
didn't consider a crucifixion (a slow torture-execution method used by the Romans)to be a violent death.
With Dostoevsky in any future thread we know what to expect: Dostoevsky cut up so that Dostoevsky himself, were he still alive, wouldn't recognize
the words put in his mouth by Koy.
Koy, have you no shame?

leonarde

Back to the Shroud (note to non-French speakers:
you merely missed insults and kibbitzing, nothing
of any substance).
So, one of the long-term criticisms of the Shroud
has to do with the blood. In short, it is "too red": aged blood tends to turn black, or nearly black. That of the Shroud has not. This has been
for adherents difficult to explain. For debunkers
this has been yet another "proof" that the Shroud
is a forgery. It is one of those features which makes a big impression on those who think of themselves as having "common sense" but has also
featured in the critiques of microanalyst Walter
McCrone (the only original STURP member to find against the possibility of authenticity) and of
former New York chief medical examiner Michael Baden. The latter also found the blood flows too
"neat".
In subsequent posts I will examine the most likely
explanation for the redness of the blood on the Shroud of Turin....
Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

Quelle surprise. Vous n'avez aucune intégrité en français, non plus!

leonarde

Ah, vous parlez de la integrite? Pour vous, c'est
un pays completemente etranger........