Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

very clear cut and readily understandable current info on the shroud. if, after reading this....

Why am I not surprised to find that it is a woo woo site?
Your oh- so -impeacable source will also debunk evolution with the
"Theory of shock dynamics".
Article on how dinoszurs died out only a few thousand years zgo.
Who knows what other marvels await those who credulously venture into their site!

The "shroud" may be real, but with friends like "newgeology.us"
who needs skeptics?

You know what committing a "genetic fallacy" is, right?
You have just committed it.

Sure. Calling "fallacy" is such a clever way of getting out of the worthless nature or your woo woo site.

Sometimes comic books get things right, too.

Can you do better than a comic book?

Calling a fallacy a fallacy is a simple statement of fact.
You, like Morny, have been shown VARIOUS cites and citations of experts stating the issues with the C14 dating of the shroud.
What you choose to do with that is your problem.

Calling it a fallacy dont make it one. You offer comic book, I will call it a comic book.
Fact.
Woo woo detection inability is your problem.

Audie believes that the secular chemical specialist peer reviewed journal thermochimica acts is a woo woo site
I guess we can throw out any science journals that don't agre with her worldview

Morny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

Morny wrote:
I asked you the following and you have not yet responded:
Which protocols were violated? Clearly and concisely state your position. Then pick your best link (or maybe two) that supports your position, so that I can respond.

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

What part of "Which protocols were violated? Clearly and concisely state your position." is unclear?

Morny fur petes sake there wasn't even a micro chemical analysis done on the c14 test piece to even determine if the piece was chemically indicative of the test of the shroud . This is a total violation of a basic scientific protocol , especially with a c14 test of this magnitude. I know you have me on ignore but now you are showing that you have an emotional and not logical position against the shroud

Calling it a fallacy dont make it one. You offer comic book, I will call it a comic boo

Are you serious?
You do know what a genetic fallacy is right?

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

In short, even if it was posted in a comic book or fairy tale, if a statement is correct, it is correct regardless of where it was posted.

What you made Audie was, 100%, a genetic fallacy.

Don't argue that it isn't because it is the classical definition of one.

EX:
I subscribe to evolution BUT if an article was posted on a anti-evolution site that makes valid points, I would not dismiss it simply because it was a site that I find, well, silly ( as I do with most anti-evolution sites).
That would be, qute simply, wrong.

I will remind everyone that this is a thread about NDE and that if you want to continue discussion about the shroud, go to the shroud thread.
Any further posts about the shroud will result in this thread being locked.

Here is another fascinating Nde experience

http://youtu.be/iSQ1XUWVLRc