I'm not the least bit surprised to find out that he's a Shroud Shit.

(July 20, 2015 at 6:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, dude. The fact that there is a painting of the shroud that is older than the flawed C-14 dating suggests for the age of the shroud is an inconvenient fact that you cannot explain.

So... in a response to my pointing out your argument from ignorance, you opt to go for a second argument from ignorance? "You can't explain this, therefore I'm right," is no better than "science can't explain this, therefore I'm right."

Besides, I did explain it: you've got a picture of a shroud, that you're convinced is the shroud... for no readily apparent reason. Or did you think human silhouettes on cloth are unique to the shroud of turin? Hey, my grandparents have an old cloth they use for their projector back home: if they project a human image on it, is that the shroud of turin too?

Or do you have room in your heart for more silhouettes on cloth in every other circumstance but this one?

Quote:What I'm hanging MY hat on is that science has looked at this piece of linen again and again and again...and still has no explanation for how a 3-D image was created on it. Oh, but "science of the gaps": "We will figure it out eventually."

Even if we never find out- and I'm prepared to accept that as a distinct possibility, given the severely underwhelming evidence it would represent even if it were genuine, so you can stow that "science of the gaps" childishness right now- a mystery still doesn't mean you're right. Pointing to an unknown and asserting that it's evidence for your position is, yes, an argument from ignorance.

Quote:Maybe so...but till then...there is this enigmatic image on a cloth indicating wounds that bear a striking resemblance to the description of the events of Jesus' scourging and death. Either it is the real deal or an amazing icon that testifies to the extraordinary faith of the artist who chose to express his faith in God by creating it.

That's a win for believers either way.

Hey, if you're happy with fallacy laden reasoning like that, why bother with this whole "I'mma do evidence at you!" thing that you're doing in this thread? If "here's an old cloth, mighta been Jesus what was under there, you don't know so therefore it was, therefore Jesus," is sufficient for you, then you really have no business telling anyone else that what they won't accept from you is good evidence. Clearly, you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you right on the epistemology.

FACT:

If one were to wrap a body in a shroud and assuming the shroud took on the facial structure and hair, once the shroud is removed and observed, the 'face' in the shroud would be extremely distorted. The shroud of turin is not extremely distorted, therefore is was never wrapped around a body to achieve the end result.

(July 20, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Randy, do you honestly think that a painting containing A shroud- that you preume based on nothing to be THE shroud- some data that suggests that the C14 dating MIGHT be off- that you presume to be so based on nothing- and an argument from ignorance- "science can't explain this!"- are evidence at all for the shroud's authenticity, sufficient to believe that? Really?

People who believe that the shroud is authentic have goat shit for brains.  For it to be real the following events would have to have happened.

1.  The body gets wrapped in the fashion that resulted in the images.
2.  The zombie rises.
3.  Someone sees the shroud and thinks that it will make a nifty souvenir.  So that person takes it home to show the local yokels.
4.  About 35 years later Jerusalem gets sacked and some Roman trooper finds the shroud in some dusty hovel.  It seems to be fancy with some guy's corpse image on it so he puts it in his poke as a war trophy.
5.  Later on the trooper returns to Italy and shows it to his buddies in his home town.  It stays in the family for centuries while Rome and Italy is sacked by invaders.  
6.  Over 1,200 years later some monk hears about the rag and steals it for his monastery.  
7.  And whammo!  Here it is in 2015 and the superstitious twits swear that it's real.  
8.  I once met a guy who claimed that he walked all the way from the moon. I asked how he was able to do that.  He said that he walked on the moon beams during the full moon.

I keep saying that if people don't care about logical fallacies, no one here will take them seriously.

I think it's falling on deaf ears.

(July 21, 2015 at 2:08 am)robvalue Wrote: I keep saying that if people don't care about logical fallacies, no one here will take them seriously.

I think it's falling on deaf ears.

Yes, Randy and others like him act as if there is no problem with the church straddling the fences on hoaxes that they think further the christian cause. The church has made no honest effort to get and publicize the scientific truth for fear of alienating the on-going hoax perpetrators. They believe lying for jesus is acceptable.

I guess their god is the father of deceit. You really have to stretch the interpretations of god as the perfect embodiment of good, truth, and light to support deceit, hoaxes, and false witness. Heck, I seem to recall a commandment against it too. But, I guess if you drink enough jesus kool-aid you can make yourself think any evil is ok.

(July 20, 2015 at 12:35 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: No one who actually understands the arguments Aquinas of this forum so its not surprising that they reflexively belief Wikipedia entries that have been edited by equally ignorant militant skeptics.

Good show, Randy.