| 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, 04:39 PM
|  | Moderator
59     
| | Join Date: 7th February 2002 Location: *displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Posts: 7,250
Blessings: 91,962
Reps: 373 (power: 0) | | | /me curtseys deeply before FragmentsofDreams.
Peace be with you,
~VOW |
1st October 2002, 04:44 PM
| | Banned (just kidding)
31   
| | Join Date: 25th September 2002 Location: van city
Posts: 1,445
Blessings: 91,664
Reps: 9 (power: 0) | | | Please close this thread. It has gotten way out of hand.
__________________
A perfect world is a world without children. |
1st October 2002, 05:17 PM
| | Senior Member
45 
| | Join Date: 29th May 2002
Posts: 861
Blessings: 1,062,672
Reps: 208,643,633,902,378 (power: 208,643,633,912) | |  coincidentally
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. |
1st October 2002, 05:18 PM
|  | Untitled One
36
| | Join Date: 6th June 2002
Posts: 2,737
Blessings: 91,368
Reps: 20 (power: 0) | | Fragment: Thank you.  NOW we can get somewhere on this particular issue. |
1st October 2002, 05:23 PM
| | Senior Member
45
| | Join Date: 29th May 2002
Posts: 861
Blessings: 1,062,672
Reps: 208,643,633,902,378 (power: 208,643,633,912) | | Originally posted by VOW
Go on outside to play, little boy.
Peace,
~VOW
And thus we have the paragon of Christian intellectual rejoinders.... |
1st October 2002, 05:30 PM
|  | Pro Deo et Patria
32
 | | Join Date: 12th April 2002
Posts: 7,278
Blessings: 9,529
Reps: 134,994,872,109,876,352 (power: 134,994,872,109,893) | | 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
__________________
When you encounter difficulties and contradictions, do not try to break them, but bend them with gentleness and time.
---Saint Francis de Sales |
1st October 2002, 05:56 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 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. |
1st October 2002, 05:58 PM
| | Moderator
59
| | Join Date: 7th February 2002 Location: *displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Posts: 7,250
Blessings: 91,962
Reps: 373 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by SLP
And thus we have the paragon of Christian intellectual rejoinders....
To SLP:
Nah, that wasn't a "Christian" rejoinder. That was the remark of a parent who has dealt with her share of toddler tantrums in the past.
Most parents learn early on you can't reason with a toddler.
Peace,
~VOW |
1st October 2002, 06:03 PM
| | Pro Deo et Patria
32
| | Join Date: 12th April 2002
Posts: 7,278
Blessings: 9,529
Reps: 134,994,872,109,876,352 (power: 134,994,872,109,893) | | | 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
__________________
When you encounter difficulties and contradictions, do not try to break them, but bend them with gentleness and time.
---Saint Francis de Sales |
1st October 2002, 06:06 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 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. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
