If science can put men on the moon, science can give reality a good or bad name.But science isnt reality. So it cannot give it good name or bad.
So its all the moon's fault then?If science can put men on the moon, science can give reality a good or bad name.
So you could create a new shroud using radiation? I'm going to call your bluff and say that's just another assertion and you don't actually know how the shroud was made either. If not, go ahead and make us a new shroud.If you knew anything of the history or science of the shroud (which is extremely unlikely given your previous posts utterly devoid of content) you would know it was Professor Edward Halls who having provably botched the dating - that said and I quote - in his normally unscientific manner in a press conference held by the british museum.
And I quote "some forger faked it up and flogged it"
So it is the date bodgers and British Museum who made the hypothesis.
It is up to them to prove it their hypothesis using medieaval methods. They cannot.
It is not medieval, not just sightings before that, but also forensic correspondence with a far older cloth. It is real crufixion pathology. The mark has only been created chemically by raditations. And such as Lazarro noted by UV tests that recreated the half tone, that it would have taken a singularity - billions of watts in a billion of a second to make it one go.
The science supports authenticity, only Halls pseudoscience supports the idea of medieval origin.
If science can put men on the moon, science can give reality a good or bad name.
So you could create a new shroud using radiation? I'm going to call your bluff and say that's just another assertion and you don't actually know how the shroud was made either. If not, go ahead and make us a new shroud.
Well, I'm glad he thought that; aren't you?Man actually thought
"it can fry thousands of others in another country at the push of a button"
Why then does he have a beard?It really is the shroud of a crucified man, who suffered all the unique (in documented history) tortures Jesus is documented as suffering.
Why then does he have a beard?
Isaiah 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
Is this the same concordance that [says] Mary wasn't a virgin?If you go back to the concordance or youngs literal it seems to refer to "pull out hair" - it does not say all hair or even beard. I have no doubt they pulled at His hair , His beard.
Of course you don't need to, after all you've never repeated the claim that the image was made in a nanosecond burst of radiation. Only a person who made that claim should be expected to back it up, right?I do not need to.
By the same token, we've been waiting even longer for the shroudies to back their case.Having given his fraudulent shroud RC dating - it was halls who made the claim:
"a forger faked it up and flogged it"
We are still waiting for the fraudulent date supporters, to back that case they made. They cannot.
I didn't ask you to explain how it was faked. I asked you to explain how it was made. And if you can do that, you should be able to repeat the process. If you can't, then your claims are no different to the ones you disparage.I do not think it a fake. I think it is the real deal. I do not have to explain how it was faked. It really is the shroud of a crucified man, who suffered all the unique (in documented history) tortures Jesus is documented as suffering.
Of course you don't need to, after all you've never repeated the claim that the image was made in a nanosecond burst of radiation. Only a person who made that claim should be expected to back it up, right?
By the same token, we've been waiting even longer for the shroudies to back their case.
Do you know what double standards are? You certainly have a few on display here.
I didn't ask you to explain how it was faked. I asked you to explain how it was made. And if you can do that, you should be able to repeat the process. If you can't, then your claims are no different to the ones you disparage.
You have nothing except assertions and apriori conclusions based on pre-conceived ideas. You claim the shroud is real, yet you cannot demonstrate that to be true. Your response to all counter arguments is to disparage them and pretend they are worthless, while at the same time ignoring the blindingly obvious failings in so many of your own supposedly unassailable arguments.Spare me the sophist games.
You cannot be more wrong, or more unscientific.
The pathology is indeed recognisable as that of a crucified man, crucified exactly as Jesus was, the only one documented as crucified that way. The pathology was invisible to a forger, and unknown at the time, and the correspondence to the sudarium shows it is very old , and Middle Eastern. Occam’s razor says it is real.
How the mark got there is irrelevant to authentication. But it is a fascinating post mortem event.
In the fake corner you have nothing except a fraudulent date, and if you contend it is fake you must explain the mark too. You contend an artist did it. How?
The reaction of sceptics to the shroud is faith based not science based.
Anyway . Until you are willing to discuss the science there is little more to be said.
You have nothing except assertions and apriori conclusions based on pre-conceived ideas. You claim the shroud is real, yet you cannot demonstrate that to be true. Your response to all counter arguments is to disparage them and pretend they are worthless, while at the same time ignoring the blindingly obvious failings in so many of your own supposedly unassailable arguments.
If you want discussion, discuss. If somebody makes an argument, simply saying "that's a lie told by a fraudster" is not discussion.
Science does not say the shroud is Jesus' burial cloth. Another dishonest claim from you.My views are the views of science.
No faith on my part. Another dishonest claim.Yours are the views of faith in a fake that you have no idea where, or how, or whether it can have been done.
Of course not, because you can't deal with any other challenge. History doesn't get a look in, contradicting the bible doesn't get a look in, correspondence with gothic art doesn't get a look in. The only part you want to talk about is an RC date and apparent correspondence of blood stains to what you think a crucified body should have. How many crucified bodies have you examined to come to this conclusion?Would you like to contest the science instead?
You would have a problem with that. You clearly have never studied any of it.
I will not reply to another post of yours until it queries some aspect of the science. And for that you will need to study it for the first time.
To be fair, there are some peer reviewed challenges to the RC dating.@Mountainmike why hasn't the original paper been retracted? Show me where the science you claim is valid has been published in a peer reviewed journal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?