Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 04-04-2002, 11:38 AM

I feel your pain, Koy.

Just in case you aren't aware, I post the following <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000075" target="_blank">link</a> for your own amusement. Lenny apparently still thinks he can teach himself forensics just by reading books. Kind of like how Douglas thinks he can get into graduate school by talking about his equations. Amusing...

SC

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 11:40 AM

For Asha'man: posted by Koy:

Quote:

I FULLY GRANT THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE 34 WOUNDS AS "ARTERIAL" WAS ALWAYS AND FOREVER MY OWN SPECULATION BASED ENTIRELY UPON YOUR SOURCES.

Apparently I am supposed to do battle with
Koy's speculation. What fun....

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 11:59 AM

Partial post by Koy:

Quote:

1.The wounds from the wrists (yes, I've taken out arterial, even though it is your own evidence that states they would most likely be arterial wounds)

What of "MY own evidence" states that they would
most likely be arterial wounds?

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 12:05 PM

Posted by SC:

Quote:

Lenny apparently still thinks he can teach himself forensics just by reading books.

The basics, yes.

Datheron · 04-04-2002, 04:56 PM

Leonade,

Quote:

Posted by Datherton: So what????? The central question about the S of Turin is authenticity: you have just all but conceded that it has been proven in the first 2 senses:
1)the Image is indeed that of a crucified man.
2)the cloth and Image likely date from ancient
times.

Nope - I have done no such thing. Rather, I just looked past both criterion and asked the question: does 3) hinge on 1) or 2)? The answer, of course, is "no". You have not shown that 1) or 2) is true, and you have definitely not shown that 3) is true.

Quote:

The third point/level of authenticity touches, of course, on religious matters. Therefore it is best to let individuals decide for themselves. Still the more immersed they are in the particulars of the Image of the S of Turin, the more likely they are to notice that there would have been VERY VERY VERY few such victims among the many thousands crucified who would share ALL of the following:
1)had legs which were NOT broken.
2)had the lance/spear wound in the chest/side area
3)had crown-of-thorns blood flows/wounds in the
scalp area.

Again, I think that INDIVIDUALS, keeping their own
counsel, should evaluate that for themselves...
Cheers!

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

Why play the process of elimination, which is shaky at best? This is what's wrong with your argument - a simple ad ignoratium plea based on authority. You have a positive assertion, so you go show that it is true, not how it can be true and existing explanations may turn out to be false.

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 07:17 PM

Posted by Datherton:

Quote:

Nope - I have done no such thing. Rather, I just looked past both criterion and asked the question: does 3) hinge on 1) or 2)? The answer, of course, is "no".

If you mean by "hinge on" depend on, then the answer is.....yes: if the image is NOT of a truly
crucified man (ie only is a man-made image/painting/rubbing) then it wasn't Jesus' funeral cloth. The same way with #2: if the Shroud
does NOT date from ancient times then THAT eliminates it as Jesus' funeral cloth too. So yes,
it does "hinge" or depend on questions 1) and 2).
Both are necessary but (arguably)not sufficient conditions for 3) to supply an affirmative answer.
It is the DETAILS of the body image, the pollen,
the blood type, and many other things which will shed light on # 3.
Cheers!

britinusa · 04-04-2002, 07:48 PM

Excuse me for jumping in on page 13 of this surprisingly long thread. I didn't join before because I just wasn't interested. A certain rag of a certain northern Italian city is old news.
Xians like Leonarde and Tercel pretend not to be all that concerned about the shroud's authenticity, but they aren't fooling anyone.
The Shroud of Turin is symbolic of the entire xian belief system. They simply can't let it go. The shroud is a fake, a hoax. Three separate teams examined it in the late 80's and came to the same conclusion. The shroud is dated between 1260 and 1390. There is no record of its existance before the 14th century. Its a fake. Period.
So why can't xians let it go? Why do they desparately wrap themselves inside this shroud? Simple. Its because the case for xianity is so piss-pathetic.
Imagine this scenario: There is so much non-biblical corroboration of the miracles of Jesus Christ that you could build a library the size of the Pentagon and it STILL wouldn't be big enough. Famous writers from Rome and Greece and everywhere else in the world visited the holy land and witnessed Jesus walking on water, bringing people back from the dead, turning water into wine and all the rest of his repertoire of party tricks.
After the resurrection, Jesus visits Pilate and says (in Latin): "Yah-boo, sucks to you, fatboy."
Do you think the xians of today would be bothered about that silly old rag?

leonarde · 04-04-2002, 08:01 PM

By the previous poster:

Quote:

After the resurrection, Jesus visits Pilate and says (in Latin): "Yah-boo, sucks to you, fatboy."

1)Don't quite get the point.
2)I know nothing about Pilate's obesity.
3)Jesus did indeed visit Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee persecutor of Christians, and the experience changed Saul's (then Paul's) outlook/religion. Paul preached about his vision,
converted many persons. The record of Saul/Paul
is in the Acts of the Apostles, his view of the
(then new) religion is in several "epistles".

Question: if you don't believe what Saul/Paul said
and wrote about Jesus, why would you believe what
a post-Resurrection Pilate would have said/written
after seeing the risen Christ?

PS I don't get the impression that Tercel is an
authenticity adherent; I merely understand him to
have an open mind on the subject. He has one up on
many here.

Cheers!

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

Tercel · 04-04-2002, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by britinusa:
Xians like Leonarde and Tercel pretend not to be all that concerned about the shroud's authenticity, but they aren't fooling anyone.

Say what?
I am very concerned about the Shroud's authenticity: If it is ever shown to be authentic or most likely authentic then it would provide a very nice argument for Christianity - a way of scientifically verifying the resurrection. I would love to see it proved authentic and I will be following very closely if any further C-dating or other analysis is done on it. As you can imagine, I would consider such a finding to be nothing short of all my Christmases coming at once.

But you seem to be implying here that I'd be desperately concerned if it was proved a forgery. Hardly. Heck, until a couple of months ago I was barely aware of more than it existed and I believed it was generally thought it a forgery. If it turns out it is a forgery I haven't lost anything.

Quote:

The Shroud of Turin is symbolic of the entire xian belief system. They simply can't let it go.

That's a rather gross generalisation/outright lie don't you think?

Quote:

The shroud is a fake, a hoax. Three separate teams examined it in the late 80's and came to the same conclusion. The shroud is dated between 1260 and 1390.

So the C-dating would certainly seem to suggest. I'm sure even the most pro-authenticity Christians would be prepared to drop it if the other evidence agreed with the C-dating. The trouble is that it doesn't seem to.

Quote:

So why can't xians let it go?

Because the evidence is inconclusive. Reading this thread, what I am asking myself is "What are these atheists so afraid of?"
Why are you so desperate that we drop it?
Why do the individual atheists examining the Shroud have "findings" that so significantly differ to that of the major research teams?
Why do the atheists in their efforts to disprove the Shroud's authenticity quote every anti-authenticity theory as authoratitive no matter how disproven?

What are they afraid of?

Quote:

Why do they desparately wrap themselves inside this shroud? Simple. Its because the case for xianity is so piss-pathetic.

No doubt. No doubt the case is so bad that no one who's remotely intelligent or educated believes it...

Quote:

Imagine this scenario: There is so much non-biblical corroboration of the miracles of Jesus Christ that you could build a library the size of the Pentagon and it STILL wouldn't be big enough. Famous writers from Rome and Greece and everywhere else in the world visited the holy land and witnessed Jesus walking on water, bringing people back from the dead, turning water into wine and all the rest of his repertoire of party tricks.
After the resurrection, Jesus visits Pilate and says (in Latin): "Yah-boo, sucks to you, fatboy."
Do you think the xians of today would be bothered about that silly old rag?

Yes. Any further silly questions?

Boro Nut · 04-05-2002, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
No. At least SOME of the blood clots were formed ante-mortem.!

That would be an amazing conclusion given it is based on no blood being present. Perhaps you could also inform us what day it clotted on, and if it was before or after noon?

Quote:

About the blood: this is just a layman talking but I think that if the sample is large enough it can be determined whether the blood came from an artery (oxygen-enriched) or a vein (oxygen-poor). But I would have to consult a medical or forensic work.

Cheers!

This is just a layman answering but I would argue with Harvey himself that blood is oxygen-enriched the instant it leaks out, or are you suggesting the semi permeable membrane barrier of the lungs actually super-oxygenates the blood from the air? It might be possible to analyse the amount of waste products in the plasma from a lab sample and guess if it has passed through the kidneys or not, but that's about it. The only indication that any forensic scientist has that blood came from an artery or not is the spray pattern, if any.

Boro Nut

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2002, 11:38 AM	#301
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	I feel your pain, Koy. Just in case you aren't aware, I post the following <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000075" target="_blank">link</a> for your own amusement. Lenny apparently still thinks he can teach himself forensics just by reading books. Kind of like how Douglas thinks he can get into graduate school by talking about his equations. Amusing... SC

04-04-2002, 07:48 PM	#307
britinusa Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: State College, PA Posts: 283	Excuse me for jumping in on page 13 of this surprisingly long thread. I didn't join before because I just wasn't interested. A certain rag of a certain northern Italian city is old news. Xians like Leonarde and Tercel pretend not to be all that concerned about the shroud's authenticity, but they aren't fooling anyone. The Shroud of Turin is symbolic of the entire xian belief system. They simply can't let it go. The shroud is a fake, a hoax. Three separate teams examined it in the late 80's and came to the same conclusion. The shroud is dated between 1260 and 1390. There is no record of its existance before the 14th century. Its a fake. Period. So why can't xians let it go? Why do they desparately wrap themselves inside this shroud? Simple. Its because the case for xianity is so piss-pathetic. Imagine this scenario: There is so much non-biblical corroboration of the miracles of Jesus Christ that you could build a library the size of the Pentagon and it STILL wouldn't be big enough. Famous writers from Rome and Greece and everywhere else in the world visited the holy land and witnessed Jesus walking on water, bringing people back from the dead, turning water into wine and all the rest of his repertoire of party tricks. After the resurrection, Jesus visits Pilate and says (in Latin): "Yah-boo, sucks to you, fatboy." Do you think the xians of today would be bothered about that silly old rag?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.