No, silly. Magical supernatural Type AB blood that has been transformed into paint 'cuz God can do that and methodological naturalism is just an assumption that impedes understanding of the world.
2 Likes
I accept your criticism however I do respect your credentials and your experience. The point you have made about the diversity of MYH sequences in human populations was eye opening to me. As far as this discussion goes I am trying to stimulate a conversation based on papers and evidence. I do not know Fanti except for a few papers I have read and given I posted his resume you now know as much as I do.
Evasion. My point was about the hypocrisy of your TOUTING the credentials of those with whom you agree.
I perceived no opening in any of your responses to me. And itâs MYH7, not the other MYH genes.
No, you are selectively ignoring most of the relevant evidence.
I donât need to see his resume. I read the paper and itâs obviously worthless.
2 Likes
What do you think is the most relevant evidence?
Based on what?
Youâre sealioning again. Please stop.
Decades of experience.
1 Like
Hi John
I respect your experience but not your rhetoric. There is no evidence at this point that you have any real grasp on the issues with the shroud. Argument strictly from authority is a logical fallacy and ads no value to the discussion.
No, you donât. Period. Be honest.
That is an example of you completely ignoring the breadth of my experience, right after falsely claiming that you respect it.
Amazing.
Iâm arguing from the evidence. The evidence presented in the paper you are touting is what makes it ludicrous.
Then you should be able to explain why and not just make bald assertions. When we were discussing MYH you provided evidence and made an argument. So far on the shroud you have not.
There are issues with the data here and @Rumraket and @Tim have started discussing some of the issues like large quantities of gold in one of the samples tested.
I am, but many others have explained why. You ignore those explanations and engage in relentless sealioning.
And so far, you have ignored their explanations in favor of sealioning.
1 Like
9 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic
Indeed.
Iâm beginning to wonder: are there any lines of âevidenceâ offered for the authenticity of the âshroudâ which do not, instead, HURT the case for authenticity? It doesnât seem so. Every time something new is introduced, it is so spectacularly bad that it can only be said to (1) make it even more apparent that the case for authenticity is barking mad, and (2) make the offeror of this âevidenceâ look even more credulous than he looked before.
They had me at âneutron bombardment.â After that, there really can be nothing but laughter.
8 Likes
HmmmâŚ. No nitrogen, lots of gold. Maybe medieval alchemists were starting with the wrong element. If only they were privy to this information.
Note again that some of them contradict each other. All the nitrogen has supposedly disappeared from a blood sample after turning to carbon 14, thus leaving no proteins in the sample. (Thatâs where the nitrogen is; remove the nitrogen, the proteins fall apart.) But also, the blood type has been determined, and thatâs done by analyzing the blood proteins. Creationists are commonly unconcerned with consistency, or perhaps they just donât notice.
5 Likes
It also would appear to run into the problem that, I would suspect, you would need a more substantial sample to detect the presence of a certain blood type than to detect the mere presence of nitrogen.
Given that they ended up with far more gold than they shouldâve had nitrogen in the first place, they must have been quite promiscuous in what they were transmuting. 
AFAICG from this video, the type of test used to determine the blood type is done against the antibodies in the blood.
Thatâs because the A and B antigens on red blood cells apparently tend to decay very quickly (being made of carbohydrates), so blood type tests are done targeting the antibodies in the blood, rather than the antigents on the red blood cells.
The thing about AB blood type is it has no antibodies against A and B. So when your blood test fails to find that the blood clumps up when provided with both A and B antigens, the inference is it must be AB blood since this is the only blood type that would lack antibodies against both antigens. Therefore no clumping.
The problem here is the whole premise of this type of blood test is that you already know youâre testing blood.
Peanut butter, or blueberry juice for that matter, also has no antibodies against A and B antigens. So the fact that the âblood testâ on the shroud returns a result consistent with AB blood doesnât at all indicate itâs actually blood on the shroud. All that the test actually shows is it âhas no antibodies against A and B antigens.â Which anything that isnât blood would also not have.
Iâm not kidding. Shroud scholarship and research is usually either inept, or ridiculous. Or both.
5 Likes
A question, do these antibodies degrade (outside the body) over time?
Would the antibodies still be detectable in blood after several centuries?
Even if it is demonstrable that the stains on the shroud are from blood (and I can remember no evidence to this having been presented on this thread), would any blood test as AB after a sufficiently long period of time?
So it seems as if you thought that there is no serious case to make in favor of the authenticity thesis, that only highly biased and gullible christians could support it. But this is clearly false for several proponents of authenticity, whose worldviews would naturally have led them to reject the authenticity thesis, have, after close study of the relic, come to be convinced that the Turin Shroud is the cloth Jesus was buried in. For example, David Rolfe, a photography expert who started out as an atheist and set out to prove that the shroud was a fake, changed his mind so radically that he became a Christian!
Hmm
Imprint? Have you forgotten Agamemnonâs mask?
Blood-soaked? This is far from an established fact, even looking at the paper you think supports it?
Thank you Gil for that blatant strawman argument.
We are NOT basing our argument on the gullibility of its advocates.
We are basing our argument on the lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary.
We are then inferring gullibility from belief in the shroudâs authenticity in the teeth of this evidence.
âI was an atheist until âŚâ is one of the most worn-out lines in Christian Apologetics.
Does David Rolfe present any evidence (as opposed to assertions, opinions and wild conjectures) that supports the shroudâs authenticity?
No he does not â he simply repeats the DEBUNKED âRepairâ canard.
This renders David Rolfe irrelevant.
4 Likes