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.
What? John, are you just making stuff up? Where was Jesus specifically beaten with a cat o' nine tails?
You can check the pathology report on it:
"There are the definite images of a traumatic scourging on the back, chest and legs. The triple pattern of dumbbell shape wounds appear to have been made with a Roman flagrum. There are as many as 120 such wounds and it appears that the blows were delivered from both sides and at somewhat different heights, perhaps by two men."
I think that Joe Nickell of CSICOP has shown how to create shroud images using techniques that would have been available to a forger at the time but I don't have a reference handy. I'll look for something.
You keep calling it a forgery, but if it is not real, it is still a masterpeice, it is still a historic relic and a highly detailed work of art.
If it is a forgery, they sure did a good job on it, even to use dirt that could only have come from isreal.
"There is dirt on the knees, on the tip of the nose, and on the feet. This dirt contains travertine aragonite limestone found in Israel, likely only found in this part of the world."
I havent read through this huge old thread, but just to mention about the title, wasnt the shroud shown to be false in the 90's? Another fake of the last couple hundred years?
Quite often forgeries or fakes are works of art. You often only get really bad fakes or forgeries when they are being made to sell to tourists.
I read that there were at least 40 different shrouds. At this point in time, the shroud of turin is the only one anyone takes serious. Science has not been able to prove it to be a fake or forgery.
It was already shown to be a forgery/fake as you can see from Frumious Bandersnatch post.
One thing to note, is that the same dating method used to date it as a fake, dated other things such as the dead sea scrolls to their correct time, showing that they were fakes as some suggested.
It was already shown to be a forgery/fake as you can see from Frumious Bandersnatch post.
There are people who feel that it is a fake. But I was refering to the offical position of the scientists who studied the shroud. The majority opinon was something like 18 and the minority opinion was something like two people. Do you want to go by a minority opinion consensus?
There are people who feel that it is a fake. But I was refering to the offical position of the scientists who studied the shroud. The majority opinon was something like 18 and the minority opinion was something like two people. Do you want to go by a minority opinion consensus?
Seems only fair if creationists can do it with geology, physics, biology, history, archeology, etc.
So, I guess if the Shroud is real because the majority of those that studied it conclude it was, then evolution is valid and the earth is really really old.
Why does the c-14 dating list it as being at the wrong date?
Originally Posted by JohnR7
There are people who feel that it is a fake. But I was refering to the offical position of the scientists who studied the shroud. The majority opinon was something like 18 and the minority opinion was something like two people. Do you want to go by a minority opinion consensus?
Linear Mode
