Shroud of Turin proven genuine by REAL science

[RCC]

Most people probably heard by now all kinds of stories about Shroud of Turin being fake, etc. Well, once again we have been fooled by our biased media. See what the REAL scientists have discovered. Also, see how the other "scientist" faked the results to support their atheistic believes.



<DIV>You have to download this movie clip on your hard disk. it's about 14 MB</DIV>
<DIV>
Just Right click and choose Save As ... </DIV>
<DIV>http://www.wtlzone.com/pictures/shroud.wmv</DIV>

 

[HazyRigby]

Can you paraphrase? Some of us ARE on dialup, you know.

And by the way, does the phrase "REAL scientists" mean those you agree with?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Hazy, same old arguments with a nice dose of "If you are not Catholic you are going to burn in hell" thrown in at the end for kicks.

There was no new evidence shown and no new arguments, over all I found it a sad waste of my time and bandwidth.

 

[RCC]

Basically it proves that the C14 test they did was totally flawed, plus there is strong evidence that the whole thing was a delibaerate fraud. They tried really hard to disprove it and they did a really good job.

Plus even if they didn't, C14 dating is a joke. It ususally doesn't work with samples with known age, so whu should it work with unknown age ? I think Vatican should never have allowed that test.

 

[kaotic]

lol this hole post is a joke.

 

[Chris H]

c-14 dating is actually pretty accurate in many cases. Not only that, but the overwhelming consensus of even very sonservative Christian scientists has been that the shroud is a forgery. Doesn't absolutely prove it's a forgery, but casts enough reasonable doubt to where I don't put any faith in it.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by RCC
Basically it proves that the C14 test they did was totally flawed, plus there is strong evidence that the whole thing was a delibaerate fraud. They tried really hard to disprove it and they did a really good job.

Plus even if they didn't, C14 dating is a joke. It ususally doesn't work with samples with known age, so whu should it work with unknown age ? I think Vatican should never have allowed that test.

And your going to prove C-14 dating false...How?? With what hard scientific evidence?

Chris

 

[RCC]

C-14 is based on number of fauly assumption:

1. The rate of C-14 decay has always been the same
2. The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has always been the same (not true)

Many evolutionist say that there is absolutely no reliable dating method.
They did many tests with samples of known age and the results were very wrong. So if they base their claim that the Shroud of Turin is a fake on C-14 dating then that's not a proof to me. If it's a fake how come there is no paint on it ?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

RCC

Unlike what they said in your video, C14 dating does not assume either if those things. Infact there are many correcting factors because we know that C14 levels were different in the past.

It would help if you learned a little bit about C14 dating before claiming it to be false.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by RCC
C-14 is based on number of fauly assumption:

1. The rate of C-14 decay has always been the same

Nuclear decay rates are very stable. With what evidence are you claiming that the decay rate has changed?

Chris

 

[RCC]

OK, I told you that C-14 dating is usually faulty with samples of known age
then why should it work with samples of unknown age ? I know you don't believe it, but that's your problem. There is enough evidence that points to me being right.

Plus even if the C-14 dating worked, as the video points out the 'scientist' who dated Shroud commited a deliberate fraud by substituting the samples and consulting each other behind a closed door. I think it safe to say that the whole thing was a fraud.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by RCC
OK, I told you that C-14 dating is usually faulty with samples of known age
then why should it work with samples of unknown age ? I know you don't believe it, but that's your problem. There is enough evidence that points to me being right.

And who are you? Radiochemists and scientists say it is reliable, RCC does not. Hmm which one should I trust. . . . Please, RCC provide this evidence that makes you right citing revelant scientific publications to back yourself up.

Plus even if the C-14 dating worked, as the video points out the 'scientist' who dated Shroud commited a deliberate fraud by substituting the samples and consulting each other behind a closed door. I think it safe to say that the whole thing was a fraud.

You wouldn't happen to have any peer-reviewed scientific articles that say this? This sounds alot like "Discovery Channel" versus PNAS.

BTW, RCC. Please read the following link to educate yourself on radiometric dating. Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by RCC
There is enough evidence that points to me being right.

I, too, would like to see all this evidence.

 

[RCC]

See: How accurate is Carbon-14 dating?
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by RCC
OK, I told you that C-14 dating is usually faulty with samples of known age
then why should it work with samples of unknown age ? I know you don't believe it, but that's your problem. There is enough evidence that points to me being right.

Plus even if the C-14 dating worked, as the video points out the 'scientist' who dated Shroud commited a deliberate fraud by substituting the samples and consulting each other behind a closed door. I think it safe to say that the whole thing was a fraud.

Why would scientists need to commit fraud to make a faulty test give bad results? Wouldn't the results be wrong anyway?

Also, if the tests you speak of occured before 1960 or we on inorganic materials, your proof is invalid.

 

[VOW]

Play nice, boys and girls!

I've done enough personal research that even before the C-14 dating was done, I had accepted the Shroud as genuine. It's a matter of belief.

If C-14 were the ONLY means of dating the Shroud, AND there was no other evidence as to the veracity of the image, okay, I might buy it. I've got enough of a background in science to believe in the credibility of C-14.

Here are the facts as I know them:
-The cloth is comparable to what was produced in Palestine at the time of Christ
-The pollens in the weave of the cloth is comparable to what was in Palestine at the time of Christ
-The image is of a crucified man
-All wounds on the image correspond to those of Christ
-The image is NOT painted on. It appears to be scorched into only the outer layer of the threads.
-The "bloodstains" however were produced by another means, and they dissolve as dried blood would, and from tests which can be done on bloodstains of ancient origin, they appear to be blood
-There is the existence of a cloth in early Church history which contained the image of the face of Christ. This cloth disappeared, and then years later the Shroud was discovered. It has been proposed that the cloth was simply the Shroud folded so only the face was visible. If this is the case, it provides the continuity missing

Okay, so all these by themselves mean squat. But taken together provide a pretty convincing case for the validity of the Shroud of Turin being the actual burial cloth of Christ.

So, what about the C-14 dating?

Well, for starters, the cloth was exposed to a fire a couple of hundred years ago. Parts of the cloth were even burned. And you'll find that alone can skew the results of C-14 dating.

Nuns tried to "mend" the cloth, by cutting away the burned portions and patching with a fabric that was contemporary to the time of the fire.

And...there has been a discovery of a type of mold growing on the fibers of the cloth, visible only on the microscopic level. However, since the mold is a current, living thing, ITS existence could possibly contaminate the C-14 dating.

So, the ultimate conclusion is that it's a personal decision as to whether or not the Shroud is "the real thing."

Either you accept it, or you don't. However, if you don't, there's absolutely no need for name calling and derogatory remarks.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[TheBear]

This tread is now ruined.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by TheBear
This tread is now ruined.

Why ruined, Bear?? I enjoyed the post before yours, although I respectfully disagree with the author.

RCC, still waiting for you to reply to me, Pete, Rufus et al about C-14 dating.

Why should we believe you instead of the scientists??

Chris

 

[TheBear]

The topic is just fine by me. And the posts seem to be quite civil.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by VOW
Play nice, boys and girls!

I've done enough personal research that even before the C-14 dating was done, I had accepted the Shroud as genuine. It's a matter of belief.

If C-14 were the ONLY means of dating the Shroud, AND there was no other evidence as to the veracity of the image, okay, I might buy it. I've got enough of a background in science to believe in the credibility of C-14.

Here are the facts as I know them:
-The cloth is comparable to what was produced in Palestine at the time of Christ
-The pollens in the weave of the cloth is comparable to what was in Palestine at the time of Christ
-The image is of a crucified man
-All wounds on the image correspond to those of Christ
-The image is NOT painted on. It appears to be scorched into only the outer layer of the threads.
-The "bloodstains" however were produced by another means, and they dissolve as dried blood would, and from tests which can be done on bloodstains of ancient origin, they appear to be blood
-There is the existence of a cloth in early Church history which contained the image of the face of Christ. This cloth disappeared, and then years later the Shroud was discovered. It has been proposed that the cloth was simply the Shroud folded so only the face was visible. If this is the case, it provides the continuity missing

Okay, so all these by themselves mean squat. But taken together provide a pretty convincing case for the validity of the Shroud of Turin being the actual burial cloth of Christ.

So, what about the C-14 dating?

Well, for starters, the cloth was exposed to a fire a couple of hundred years ago. Parts of the cloth were even burned. And you'll find that alone can skew the results of C-14 dating.

Nuns tried to "mend" the cloth, by cutting away the burned portions and patching with a fabric that was contemporary to the time of the fire.

And...there has been a discovery of a type of mold growing on the fibers of the cloth, visible only on the microscopic level. However, since the mold is a current, living thing, ITS existence could possibly contaminate the C-14 dating.

So, the ultimate conclusion is that it's a personal decision as to whether or not the Shroud is "the real thing."

Either you accept it, or you don't. However, if you don't, there's absolutely no need for name calling and derogatory remarks.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Excellent points, and admirable attitude. Thanks.