This is my reply to the fool from the Shroud of Turin site. If you enjoy smack-downs of religious loons, read on.
Christian apologists are always doing the old 1-2. Here's how it goes:
That's it, plain and simple. And they never improve on it. Amazing. Does the following sound familiar?
That's the argument: they don't understand something, therefore jeebus. John Klotz, the individual who left a comment on my post about the Shroud of Turin being a fake, is one of these religious apologists, so naturally he does the old 1-2. Here's his version.
If you don't believe me, here's his argument in his own words. (Remember, he's just trying to distract you by holding up a shiny object. There's no substance to his words):
As Klotz said: "End of story".
Hey, Klotz, one last thought regarding your original headline about comments. I guess if I had a big ol' stage prop like the Shroud of Turin to bring in the rubes, I'd have tons of ignorant commenters, too. But you know what? I'm going to stick with reality. It's more satisfying than fairy tales.
Go back and preach to the choir, Klotz. I'm done with you. Thanks for stopping by.
1. They don't understand something.
2. Therefore, jeebus.
That's it, plain and simple. And they never improve on it. Amazing. Does the following sound familiar?
1. They don't understand how evolution can produce something as complex as an eye.
2. Therefore, jeebus.
That's the argument: they don't understand something, therefore jeebus. John Klotz, the individual who left a comment on my post about the Shroud of Turin being a fake, is one of these religious apologists, so naturally he does the old 1-2. Here's his version.
1. He doesn't know how the image could have been imprinted on the shroud.
2. Therefore, jeebus.
That's literally his argument and its aim is to deflect attention from the fact that the shroud was created in the period between 1260AD and 1390AD.
You'll note this is not the alleged time of Christ. This is not a minor flaw. It means the cloth is
a fake. And all Klotz can say about this is: "The medieval origin of the Shroud is preposterous. End of story." Well, that settles it, for sure.
If you don't believe me, here's his argument in his own words. (Remember, he's just trying to distract you by holding up a shiny object. There's no substance to his words):
[T]he FACT is that the examination of the Shroud by forensic pathologists (are you one, or do you know one?) demonstrate physical conditions that are compatible with today's science, but incompatible with known science until the turn of the last century. That is, until 1900 or so no artist - including DaVinci - had the knowledge of anatomy to accurately depict in minute detail the condition of a tortured, crucified man - right down to analysis the content of his blood indicating stress and torture.Need I add, "Therefore jeebus"? He doesn't understand how the image landed on the cloth; therefore jeebus. He's just trying to distract readers from the very inconvenient fact that if the cloth is from 1300 AD -- and it is -- it can't possibly be from the time of Jesus. Therefore it is a fake.
Your medieval faker was not only a genius of not yet invented technology, he/she was a master of not then discovered physical and anatomical processes which could only be meaningfully analyzed again, at the turn of the last century. (1900).
As Klotz said: "End of story".
Hey, Klotz, one last thought regarding your original headline about comments. I guess if I had a big ol' stage prop like the Shroud of Turin to bring in the rubes, I'd have tons of ignorant commenters, too. But you know what? I'm going to stick with reality. It's more satisfying than fairy tales.
Go back and preach to the choir, Klotz. I'm done with you. Thanks for stopping by.
