Creation & EvolutionForum 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.
A few weeks ago, I was listening to the radio and the death of this fellow, whose name I now regrettably cannot remember, was announced and a bit on his life followed. He was a pioneer in the use of microscopy, particularly in ways in which microscopy is not usually used. One of the things he had been asked to look at was the shroud. One of his associates described their work on it, and quite matter of factly explained how they were actually able to see particles of pigment in the shroud's fibers - it was paint.
One of his associates described their work on it, and quite matter of factly explained how they were actually able to see particles of pigment in the shroud's fibers - it was paint.
That is part of what we are discussing; whether or not is was actually paint. We know there was iron oxide present, but the vote is still out on whether or not it was paint.
Thanks for finding that, Fragments.
Neal
__________________ War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
------------------------------------------------
We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth... If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. QUADRAGESIMO ANNO ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
Originally posted by VOW Rufus, you are sounding TIRESOME. God Himself could come stand in front of you and verify the Shroud, and you'd probably ask Him where He was published.
God doesn't need to publish. You, Souljah, et al. on the other hand are mortals and need to back up your assertions with credible material.
Archaeology IS "science," my friend. Therefore, the Journal of Archaeology would fit your requirement of being a "scientific journal."
Except we are discussing The Glyph not the Journal of Archaeology. From its own description it doesn't publish papers.
What kind of scientific credentials do you possess, which would render you capable of judging the "published scientific data" regarding the Shroud?
I'm not an archaeologist, art historian, or radiochemist. However, we can cross that bridge after someone provides scientific references for the tainting claims. Neal is trying. You and souljah are just badgering.
LOL, I love the way you discredit C-14 dating mummy remains as being applicable to the Shroud. That's great stuff! If we got all the scientific ducks in a row for you, THEN you'd probably demand comparable studies on like burial cloths from first-century Palestine.
I love the way no one has show how it is applicable to the shroud. I'm sorry but stating that dating cloth can be problematic, doesn't show that the dating of the shroud was problematic.
You remind me of my kids when they were toddlers, when they got to the interminable "why" stage.
Go on outside to play, little boy.
I guess you couldn't answer your children's questions either.
__________________ ~~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.
I'm having a hard time finding the papers themselves. I'm glad Fragments found something. To ease my search and make it more specific, what exactly will you accept? Papers published by the scientists themselves, papers published in a journal, both? For instance, I have located a book that discusses in detail the microbiological claims made, but it is several hundred pages long and I doubt will be in a journal, except maybe for a blurb.
Neal
__________________ War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
------------------------------------------------
We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth... If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. QUADRAGESIMO ANNO ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
Originally posted by isshinwhat So, Rufus, the papers the Glyph would report would be reputable, but the "archaeological news, both local and worldwide" it offers is not acceptable as a means to prove valid scientific thought?
The Glyph doesn't publish papers, according to its website. The news and essays are a good jumping off place towards scientific papers. However, the Kilman essay that souljah has used doesn't provided references for its claims that the shroud dating is affected by microbes and/or fire. That is why we are having such a problem.
I wouldn't have the scientific information for you to discern its credibility, but it would show that professionals in that field believe it to be credible. Upon what authority do you have to reject their work, before I go hunt it down?
I don't know if I have any authority. I am familiar with archeology and C-14 dating from my classics background. I just want to read these papers that people are claiming refute the 1989/9 dating. After we get those, we can then move on.
It appears that Fragment has produced some references dealing with this subject. It isn't clear right now what their conculsions are in the 14th versus 1st century issue. I think I'll have a look at them and get back to you. Thank you for treating this civilly and showing initiative.
Edited to add:
Neal, does your book reference papers in which the results were shown? That might be a good place for you to start.
__________________ ~~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.
coincidentally 
NOW we can get somewhere on this particular issue. 
Linear Mode
