Originally posted by Soothfast
My problem with that site (I've looked it over) is that it seems to be authored by one individual who is de facto "convinced" that the shroud is authentic.

I set much store by Wikipedia, since it has a proven track record of being very reliable, especially when it comes to the "big" topics that frequently get looked up.

Here is something on the mistake on the carbon 14 dating:

http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

If it is a forgery, no one has been able to duplicate it as of today.
It would seem that that would be a much easier task today than for
someone living in the 1400 or 1500 A.D. period.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If it is a forgery, no one has been able to duplicate it as of today.
It would seem that that would be a much easier task today than for
someone living in the 1400 or 1500 A.D. period.

Nonsense. The advantage of the forger is that we don't know the combination of techniques that were used to create the forgery (if it is a forgery -- it may be an interesting natural process).

On the one hand you seem to think very little of the capabilities of modern science (you think evolution is crap, for instance, and doubt scientific evidence that the Earth is billions of years old), yet on the other hand you see modern science as being so capable that if it can't explain precisely how a pattern on a centuries-old shroud was produced you can only draw miraculous conclusions as to their origin.

My reference to a chili recipe earlier was not a throw-away. You can give a bowl of chili to a team of scientists and ask them to determine the recipe, and they won't be able to do it. Ingredients are just part of it—and even they can be extremely difficult to determine precisely. There's the order the ingredients were added, how they were cooked, and countless other factors. That's the shroud. You think it's simple? It isn't. It can't be. Modern science isn't capable of perfectly reproducing the Mona Lisa, but no one thinks that means the painting is of divine origin.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Nonsense. The advantage of the forger is that we don't know the combination of techniques that were used to create the forgery (if it is a forgery -- it may be an interesting natural process).

On the one hand you seem to think very little of the capabilities of modern science (you think evolution is crap, for instance, and doubt scientific evidence t producing the Mona Lisa, but no one thinks that means the painting is of divine origin.

At least you have now admitted that scientist have a lot to learn. So it
is understandable that their theory of evolution is crap and their estimate
of the earth's age is way off. So apparently, we should not look to them
to determine if the Mona Lisa or the Shroud of Turin is authentic or not.
That, I guess, will have to be left in the realm of faith just like the
existence of God or the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
At least you have now admitted that scientist have a lot to learn. So it
is understandable that their theory of evolution is crap and their estimate
of the earth's age is way off. So apparently, we should not look to them
to determine if the Mona Lisa or the Shroud of Turin is authentic or not.
That, I guess, will have to be left in the realm of faith just like the
existence of God or the theory of evolution.

Just the sort of blinkered imbecility one can expect at this juncture of the dialogue. Mind you, I'm primarily using your posts as a foil in hopes that other readers may find what I say cause to pause before accepting the shroud as some kind of proof of a bloody miracle.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Just the sort of blinkered imbecility one can expect at this juncture of the dialogue. Mind you, I'm primarily using your posts as a foil in hopes that other readers may find what I say cause to pause before accepting the shroud as some kind of proof of a bloody miracle.

But the fact is that it is proof of a miracle and scientist are unable to disprove
it. This puts a wedge up the atheists' rear end.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the fact is that it is proof of a miracle and scientist are unable to disprove
it. This puts a wedge up the atheists' rear end.

Even if the rag is 2000 years old what miracle does it prove?
Do 3000 year old bandages prove the Pharoahs were divine?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Even if the rag is 2000 years old what miracle does it prove?
Do 3000 year old bandages prove the Pharoahs were divine?

Is that wedgy bothering you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the fact is that it is proof of a miracle and scientist are unable to disprove
it. This puts a wedge up the atheists' rear end.

So in other words since, say, the existence of a god cannot be disproven, therefore god exists. That's the size of it? That's the crux of your cosmology and the "reasoning" that passes for its foundations?

I've already said it: there are centuries-old works of art that modern-day scientists (and artists) are unable to duplicate. Means nothing, other than that the right combination of ingredients and techniques hasn't yet been stumbled upon. Remember that your case is not made even if the piece of cloth is found to be 2,000 years old and not 900.

Originally posted by Soothfast
So in other words since, say, the existence of a god cannot be disproven, therefore god exists. That's the size of it? That's the crux of your cosmology and the "reasoning" that passes for its foundations?

I've already said it: there are centuries-old works of art that modern-day scientists (and artists) are unable to duplicate. Means nothing, other ...[text shortened]... ur case is not made even if the piece of cloth is found to be 2,000 years old and not 900.

Yes, I see now. I thought there was something fishy about it from the
beginning, but with all the supposed evidence reported to be on the Shroud
I was taken in on the scam. For how could any cloth last for 2000 years,
it would have disintegrated long before that, right? How gullible I have
been. Now, if I could figure out this Holy Spirit, I could rest easy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I see now. I thought there was something fishy about it from the
beginning, but with all the supposed evidence reported to be on the Shroud
I was taken in on the scam. For how could any cloth last for 2000 years,
it would have disintegrated long before that, right? How gullible I have
been. Now, if I could figure out this Holy Spirit, I could rest easy.

A cloth can last 2,000 years, yes.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I see now. I thought there was something fishy about it from the
beginning, but with all the supposed evidence reported to be on the Shroud
I was taken in on the scam. For how could any cloth last for 2000 years,
it would have disintegrated long before that, right? How gullible I have
been. Now, if I could figure out this Holy Spirit, I could rest easy.

You are so ignorant that you do not even realise there was a civilised world before Jesus! The Egyptian mummys are 5,000 years old but the earliest clothing found is 8,000 years old!

http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/where-were-the-oldest-pieces-of-clothing-found

and

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You are so ignorant that you do not even realise there was a civilised world before Jesus! The Egyptian mummys are 5,000 years old but the earliest clothing found is 8,000 years old!

http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/where-were-the-oldest-pieces-of-clothing-found

and

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html

I didn't realize how ignorant I was. I've been thinking the other people
were the ignorant ones. Maybe, I'm the idiot too. I guess this forum
is teaching me a lesson. I better stop calling people names and telling
them to get their heads out of there buttocks. Maybe I should get my
head out more often, then I would know these things.

Originally posted by Taoman
*bowing*

wind-like,
sound of the newborn calf,
whistling through the air,

landing nowhere,
he learns to frolic.

Tonight the thoughts
are fragments of glass
from a broken bottle
now scattered on the floor—

Nevertheless,
the moonlight catches them
in splinters of light—

__________________________

With a bow, of course. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Tonight the thoughts
are fragments of glass
from a broken bottle
now scattered on the floor—

Nevertheless,
the moonlight catches them
in splinters of light—

__________________________

With a bow, of course. 🙂

Yes you two lazy Ole Cows high on Tippeny, keep up talkin like bletherin dunderheids leavin that puir black beastie to transfer the damn Lamp all alone oh the horror😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the fact is that it is proof of a miracle and scientist are unable to disprove
it. This puts a wedge up the atheists' rear end.

The fact that it is impossible to disprove the idea that the shroud is divine is precisely why the idea is meaningless.

Counter-intuitive, I know. But true.

--- Penguin.