Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus' burial cloth?

[Lost4words]

I doubt it. If he has, then he has used a very ineffective way of doing it. I've been a member here for a long time now, and I've yet to see any argument that is remotely convincing that God is real.

One day maybe!

 

[Kylie]

One day maybe!

I don't mean to be rude, but that's a rather arrogant attitude to have. How would you like it if I started saying, "Oh, one day you'll abandon religion and realise that atheism is the way to go!"

 

[NxNW]

As mark Twain said
“A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots”

Mark Twain never said that. So your posts claiming so are, ironically, examples of that fabricated quote.

 

[NxNW]

As for the date? As Twain said…
“A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”—Mark Twain

You've posted this fabricated quote three times in this thread. Post 84, 98, and 147. No matter how many times you post it, Twain never said that.

 

[Mountainmike]

You've posted this fabricated quote three times in this thread. Post 84, 98, and 147. No matter how many times you post it, Twain never said that.

Turns out it’s a family of expressions the first of which was credited to Johnathan swift in 1710 from the examiner…
“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it”

The idea is true regardless. Any pseudoscientific myth about the shroud gets passed between endless sceptics in a heart beat.
The real science rarely gets a look in, even limping in after.
Certainly not on this forum.


The shroud is neither mediaeval nor a forgery , it really is a crucified man with pathology that could not be faked at the time. Forensic correspondence with sudarium and the provenance of it makes it ancient. The sudarium is Middle Eastern. The linen dated around first century. That’s the verdict of science.
The RC dating was incompetent and invalid. But that’s not what sceptics want to hear.

 

[NxNW]

The shroud is neither mediaeval nor a forgery , it really is a crucified man with pathology that could not be faked at the time.

That's interesting, because the "blood" was painted on.

The RC dating was incompetent and invalid.

The Church agreed to it.

 

[Mountainmike]

That's interesting, because the "blood" was painted on.

Science demonstrates that is farcical at so many levels.

But that’s the problem.
We are on a science forum where sceptics don’t care about science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus' burial cloth?

No.

 

[Mountainmike]

I’ve no idea if anyone keeps up with the shroud.

Yet another physiochemical X-ray method hints first century.
X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample

And the maker of one of the first films David Rolfe.
Has released another film 40 Years after “ silent witness” calked “ who can it be?”

He Has also told the British museum to put up or shut up.

He has offered $1m to the British museum to duplicate the essential characteristics of the shroud ( including the chemistry - which none of the Sceptic wackos can do)

The museum declined because they have no idea. Neither does anyone else. Who would like to take part?

So…

A/ In the right corner we have a mountain of scientific evidence consistent with it being real. Including forensic correspondence with much older cloths,

B/ In the left corner just a provably botched rc test , done with a provably non validated process, with a sample with provably different characteristics ignoring agreed procedure. And a lot of sceptic blather.

in the science world A/ must win.

In sceptic world B/ wins , because their belief in the fraud is only faith.

 

[Mountainmike]

No.

So what prompted that? After such a long silence?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I’ve no idea if anyone keeps up with the shroud.

Yet another physiochemical X-ray method hints first century.
X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample

And the maker of one of the first films David Rolfe.
Has released another film 40 Years after “ silent witness” calked “ who can it be?”

He Has also told the British museum to put up or shut up.

He has offered $1m to the British museum to duplicate the essential characteristics of the shroud ( including the chemistry - which none of the Sceptic wackos can do)

The museum declined because they have no idea. Neither does anyone else. Who would like to take part?

So…

A/ In the right corner we have a mountain of scientific evidence consistent with it being real. Including forensic correspondence with much older cloths,

B/ In the left corner just a provably botched rc test , done with a provably non validated process, with a sample with provably different characteristics ignoring agreed procedure. And a lot of sceptic blather.

in the science world A/ must win.

In sceptic world B/ wins , because their belief in the fraud is only faith.

In one corner you have conjecture and forced fits. In the other corner you have counter evidence.

Regarding the stupidity that is Rolfe's "challenge" - not knowing how something was done =/= the feat is impossible. But that pretty much sums up the whole shroud story, doesn't it? "You can't tell us how it was done, so it cannot be true, therefore my a priori assumption must be correct."

 

[Mountainmike]

In one corner you have conjecture and forced fits. In the other corner you have counter evidence.

Regarding the stupidity that is Rolfe's "challenge" - not knowing how something was done =/= the feat is impossible. But that pretty much sums up the whole shroud story, doesn't it? "You can't tell us how it was done, so it cannot be true, therefore my a priori assumption must be correct."

Still no other evidence? Still no defence of rc date botching?
Still no explanation for forensic correspondence to older cloths?
So just sceptic blather in the medieaval corner.

I’m not the one arguing it’s a medieval fake.
I don’t have to say how it was faked.
Burden of proof is on you.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

I just wanted to reiterate my stance on this, before the thread dies out.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Still no other evidence? Still no defence of rc date botching?
Still no explanation for forensic correspondence to older cloths?
So just sceptic blather in the medieaval corner.

I’m not the one arguing it’s a medieval fake.
I don’t have to say how it was faked.
Burden of proof is on you.

Nice avoiding the point. If I don't know how something was faked, does that mean it cannot have been faked? And does that, therefore, support your poorly supported assertions?

 

[partinobodycular]

Yet another physiochemical X-ray method hints first century.
X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample

This gets sillier all the time.

This piece of fabric has more wardrobe changes than Liberace. One day it's a piece of the shroud, and the next day it's a patch? Who knows what it is? It depends on which study we happen to be talking about today. If it's Rogers' then it's definitely a patch, unquestionably medieval. And the RC dating was amazingly accurate. But according to this groundbreaking new X-ray Dating it's unquestionably the shroud. Yup definitely first century. And the RC dating was completely botched.

So which is it? Is it a piece of the shroud, or a medieval patch? Was the RC dating amazingly accurate or a deliberate fraud?

I wish that these people would make up their minds.

 

[NxNW]

A/ In the right corner we have a mountain of scientific evidence consistent with it being real.

There is no such evidence.

B/ In the left corner just a provably botched rc test , done with a provably non validated process, with a sample with provably different characteristics ignoring agreed procedure.

None of that is true.

 

[Mountainmike]

I just wanted to reiterate my stance on this, before the thread dies out.

It is undoubtedly odd, that I was in the process of creating a post at the time you wrote yours, after a period of absence from all of us.... So why then?

 

[Goonie]

No.

Colour me surprised. Though i suspect your reasoning is.different from mine. Which is apart from being an atheist, the first mention in history is a bishop declaring it a fake, and the 2000 years of fake relics.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is undoubtedly odd, that I was in the process of creating a post at the time you wrote yours, after a period of absence from all of us.... So why then?

Why then what?

What are you talking about?

 

[AV1611VET]

Colour me surprised. Though i suspect your reasoning is.different from mine. Which is apart from being an atheist, the first mention in history is a bishop declaring it a fake, and the 2000 years of fake relics.

I gave a strong Biblical reason from one the the Ten Commandments why I think the shroud of Turin isn't Jesus Christ.