| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
1st October 2002, 12:05 PM
|  | Based on a True Story
37 
| | Join Date: 8th May 2002 Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 10,760
Blessings: 93,095
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Nope sorry. Check the Glyph its not there.
What? |
1st October 2002, 12:06 PM
|  | PopGen Grad Student
| | Join Date: 9th May 2002 Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,526
Blessings: 91,240
Reps: 25 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by s0uljah
since the image was created by a radiation burn when Jesus was raised from the dead.
1. Why would Jesus raising from the dead leave a radiation burn?
2. What evidence do you have that the markings on the shroud are the result of radiation burn? Reference to scientific papers appreciated.
__________________
~~RvFvS~~
Evolution: The change of properties of populations of organisms over time.
Microevolution: Evolution apparent within species.
Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.
The accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion. |
1st October 2002, 12:07 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd January 2002
Posts: 17,138
Blessings: 1,100,696
Reps: 55,386,685,686,280,104 (power: 55,386,685,686,308) | | Originally posted by s0uljah
I dont recall the Catholic Church claiming it to be real. What are you talking about?
Your disbelief in signs is causing your bias in the face of all evidence.
Signs or no signs, prove to me that the shroud is 2000 years old. Period. |
1st October 2002, 12:09 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd January 2002
Posts: 17,138
Blessings: 1,100,696
Reps: 55,386,685,686,280,104 (power: 55,386,685,686,308) | | Originally posted by s0uljah
Hi Kettle, your black.
I am open to the shroud being proven one way or the other. Are you? Be honest with yourself. |
1st October 2002, 12:09 PM
| | Based on a True Story
37
| | Join Date: 8th May 2002 Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 10,760
Blessings: 93,095
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by TheBear
Signs or no signs, prove to me that the shroud is 2000 years old. Period.
Prove to me that it isn't.
The only way I have of reliably dating it is to look at the pollens, the type of linen fibers, and the history of the Shroud. It all points to AD 33
C14 has been shown to be false in the dating of this type of material. |
1st October 2002, 12:10 PM
| | Based on a True Story
37
| | Join Date: 8th May 2002 Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 10,760
Blessings: 93,095
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by TheBear
I am open to the shroud being proven one way or the other. Are you? Be honest with yourself.
Of course. I didn't get to my opinion without listening to both sides. I often think of rebuttals before I even form a definite opinion. |
1st October 2002, 12:10 PM
| | PopGen Grad Student
| | Join Date: 9th May 2002 Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,526
Blessings: 91,240
Reps: 25 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by s0uljah
What?
I went to The Glyph's website yesterday when you first mentioned it. They have the table of contents of their past issues. Mattingly's & Garza-Vermes's is not there as far as I can tell. Kilmon apparently published articles there, but M & G-V didn't.
I want to know where M & G-V published.
__________________
~~RvFvS~~
Evolution: The change of properties of populations of organisms over time.
Microevolution: Evolution apparent within species.
Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.
The accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion. |
1st October 2002, 12:11 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd January 2002
Posts: 17,138
Blessings: 1,100,696
Reps: 55,386,685,686,280,104 (power: 55,386,685,686,308) | | | I'll address the 'radiation burn' issue, once the 'fire skews C-14 results' issue has been resolved. |
1st October 2002, 12:12 PM
| | PopGen Grad Student
| | Join Date: 9th May 2002 Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,526
Blessings: 91,240
Reps: 25 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by s0uljah
Prove to me that it isn't.
The only way I have of reliably dating it is to look at the pollens, the type of linen fibers, and the history of the Shroud. It all points to AD 33
Scientific reference please. C14 has been shown to be false in the dating of this type of material.
I'll grant that it has been shown to have issues with mummys. The shroud of turin is not a mummy though.
Please, produce the scientific reference where the 1988/9 dating of the shroud is proved to be adversely affected by microbes and fire. Is that too much to ask?
__________________
~~RvFvS~~
Evolution: The change of properties of populations of organisms over time.
Microevolution: Evolution apparent within species.
Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.
The accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion. |
1st October 2002, 12:15 PM
| | Based on a True Story
37
| | Join Date: 8th May 2002 Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 10,760
Blessings: 93,095
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I went to The Glyph's website yesterday when you first mentioned it. They have the table of contents of their past issues. Mattingly's & Garza-Vermes's is not there as far as I can tell. Kilmon apparently published articles there, but M & G-V didn't.
I want to know where M & G-V published.
You mean this page: http://www.theglyph.com/previous.html
That is hardly a comprehensive list of articles. It it just highlights to sell a magazine.
Why dont you check out an issue from the library or something...
Here is the article name:
The Shroud of Turin: Genuine Artifact or Manufactured Relic? Part I
By Jack Kilmon
There are three parts...go to it.
Last edited by Chris†opher Paul; 1st October 2002 at 12:21 PM.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
