Shroud of Turin proven genuine by REAL science

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by VOW
You're swallowing the horse and choking on the tail. STRIPS were used to bind the wrists of the Figure on the Shroud, to counteract the effect of rigor mortis. There is even a suggestion of a strip of cloth under the chin and tied on top of the head: this would be to close the mouth and keep it closed. And again, there is the possibility that coins were placed over the eyes.

Vow,

You are making a critical mistake. You are using the shroud to show features of Jesus's burial and then turing around and showing how those features are consistant with the shroud. That is circular reasoning. John is very clear about the strips. The body was wrapped in them; not the hands, not the chin, but the body.

However, the observable characteristics of the Shroud itself could not POSSIBLY have been created from materials and abilities and science available at that time.

Reference please. I ask because people can claim a lot of things about an artifact, but I'd like to see what someone who has actually examined it says.

Therefore, the C-14 date doesn't even match the image evidence.

Again, the C-14 date is part of scientific literature. If you want to challenge it based on the image evidence, you are going to have to produce your own scientific sources that describes said rebuting image evidence.

Originally posted by Souljah:
Oh, dont forget that the Shroud was known before the 1300's! LOL The aliens must have visited then as well![/b]

No it wasn't. The Shroud of Turin's history only dates back to 1357, when it was first displayed in Lirey, France. (It's in the Gove paper.) What's interesting is how well the C-14 dating corresponds to its historical beginings.

 

[VOW]

To Rufus:

John says, "Bound the body with burial cloths and the spices." The wrists and the chin were bound on the Figure. I personally don't see a contradiction, but then, I'm not trying to FIND a contradiction.

All four Gospels do not agree with each other, letter by letter. I don't have a problem with that, either. I mean, what difference does it make if Jesus fed four thousand, five thousand, or seven thousand with just a bit of bread?

This webpage explains the type of markings on the threads, as to why they aren't paint. I cannot access the referenced pubished works that are cited on the webpage because of the firewall here.
http://www.shroudstory.com/notofhand.htm



To Starscream:

Here is your quote:

but then again when does a religion have to make sense?

(Most people go to Hell, post #42)

If I misinterpreted what you said, by claiming you said all religion is nonsense, then I am the one who owes an apology, and I do apologize for misinterpretation.



Peace,
~VOW

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


No it wasn't. The Shroud of Turin's history only dates back to 1357, when it was first displayed in Lirey, France. (It's in the Gove paper.) What's interesting is how well the C-14 dating corresponds to its historical beginings.

Rational thought 1, creationism/shroud of Turin 0.

The demonstrated evidence in favor of radiocarbon dating is not only evidence against the shroud but also excellent evidence that the world is older than 6000 years.

Chris

 

[ifriit]

VOW: I'm sure "neutron flux" was just an answer thrown out, since the image canNOT be explained, and people can't stand the idea of something unanswerable.

If you're certain that the image on the shroud is caused by an acausal/miraculous event, why do you care if carbon dating shows it to be from the 14th century? Why not just claim the carbon was magicked into not decaying for a thousand years plus? Why is one ad hoc explanation acceptable, and the other not?

As an aside, it never fails to amaze me how many unanswerable things have answers and how often the inexplicable is explained.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by ifriit

As an aside, it never fails to amaze me how many unanswerable things have answers and how often the inexplicable is explained.

It's called science.

Chris

 

[VOW]

To Chris H:

I personally have no problem with the world being millions of years old, dinosaurs walking the earth, and the universe being zillions of years old.


To ifriit:

I believed in the Shroud BEFORE the carbon dating was done. After the dating was done, it didn't do one single thing to destroy or even crack my belief in God. So when word started to get around that maybe there were contaminants on the Shroud that skewed the C-14 dating, I smiled a little bit.

BUT EVEN IF THE SHROUD is discovered to have a "Made in Japan" tag in the lower left corner, my faith is not dependent on the Shroud.

It seems to me, the need to prove the Shroud a fake is more driving for the nonbelievers than the need for the believers to have it validated.

Hmmm.



Peace,
~VOW

 

[Morat]

  Then why did the C14 dates not make you even consider it was a fraud? Being a thousand years too young should have made you stop and think.

  But it didn't, according to your own words. You believed the shroud was real before, and no evidence even cracked it.

  *shrug*. That's called bias.

 

 

[ocean]

It doesn't matter if the shroud is real or not. It doesn't make Jesus any less real. This thread is going on just for the sake of debate, and it needs to stop.

 

[ifriit]

VOW: BUT EVEN IF THE SHROUD is discovered to have a "Made in Japan" tag in the lower left corner, my faith is not dependent on the Shroud.

So why are you even in this discussion?

VOW: It seems to me, the need to prove the Shroud a fake is more driving for the nonbelievers than the need for the believers to have it validated.

Hmmm.

It seems to me that you care a little more about the Shroud than you claim. Now, can we be done with the insultingly patronizing amateur psychology?

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

"It doesn't matter if the shroud is real or not. It doesn't make Jesus any less real. This thread is going on just for the sake of debate, and it needs to stop."

Well, with the extreme lack of physical (or otherwise) evidence for this god-man, the shroud, according to believers, could possibly help prove the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[ocean]

Can we please stop this silly debate?

 

[VOW]

To Morat:

Being a thousand years too young should have made you stop and think.

No, because of the OTHER EVIDENCE which has been discounted here, namely, the scorch type image, the photographic quality, the LACK of paint, the bloodstains being applied BEFORE the image was made, the type of linen and the pollen which both are indigenous to 1st century Palestine....

I'm not STUPID, by any means.

I saw a blatant contradiction, with MODERN-type imaging used to create the Figure on the Shroud, and a C-14 date that appeared to be wrong.

Using the evidence of the image, the fact that NONE of the techniques were available in the 1300s should give even the SKEPTICS pause. But it seems the skeptics are too busy rubbing the noses of the believers in the C-14 date to pay attention to the other details.

tsk tsk tsk.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[VOW]

To ifriit:

Now, can we be done with the insultingly patronizing amateur psychology?

And here I was having so much fun, while people tried to convince me that true, modern, verifiable, published science was kicking me upside the head to show me the Shroud was a fake.

Patronizing is going on from both sides. I've been subjected to it, I've dished it out. But mentioning that the nonbelievers are working to rub the noses of believers in the "irrefutable facts" isn't a patronistic remark. I DO care about the Shroud. I never denied that I didn't. My premise is that my entire FAITH isn't based upon a piece of cloth.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[ifriit]

VOW: Patronizing is going on from both sides. I've been subjected to it, I've dished it out. But mentioning that the nonbelievers are working to rub the noses of believers in the "irrefutable facts" isn't a patronistic remark. I DO care about the Shroud. I never denied that I didn't.

Okay. So please present some credible scientific evidence, then.

VOW: My premise is that my entire FAITH isn't based upon a piece of cloth.

This isn't even part of the argument, though. The question is whether the Shroud is a hoax or not, not whether you believe in Christ.

In all honesty, this doesn't seem like much of an issue to me, on a personal level. I don't believe in a God, much less a Messiah, so it seems inevitable that it must be a fake. Perhaps I shouldn't be in this discussion.

 

[VOW]

I thought scientific evidence HAD been presented.

Here the "it's gotta be a hoax" people have been throwing around suppositions that the image was painted on the cloth.....yet no "anti-Shroud-ite" has given any credible scientific evidence that the image is paint!

And I tried to explain how the Face was created so that it gave the 3-D computer image when digitized. I thought I had expressed myself credibly.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[ifriit]

VOW: I thought scientific evidence HAD been presented.

Some, yes. Fragments provided two articles which addressed the issue, but perhaps unfortunately the article relevant to carbon dating was inconclusive.

VOW: Here the "it's gotta be a hoax" people have been throwing around suppositions that the image was painted on the cloth.....yet no "anti-Shroud-ite" has given any credible scientific evidence that the image is paint!

Well, personally I'd say paint or ink is a good baseline assumption, given our knowledge of textiles, especially before, say, the 1600s. Now, if you'd like to present an alternate explanation, that would be lovely. Even better, if you'd like to provide us with a scientific study showing a detailed chemical analysis of the Shroud, we'd be most appreciative.

VOW: And I tried to explain how the Face was created so that it gave the 3-D computer image when digitized. I thought I had expressed myself credibly.

I'm sorry, but your explanation appeared to say nothing more than a three-dimensional headlike object can be generated from the cloth's image via an algorithm. I find this to be utterly unsurprising, and would guess that most black and white portraits passed through a properly designed digitizing algorithm would generate similar headlike objects.

 

[Caedmon]

Personally, I would stand by the Carbon-14 dating. It's a reliable standard of scientific measurement.

 

[VOW]

To ifriit:

A portrait would not necessarily show shading proportionate to the features of a face. The lighting for portraits is indirect, and off to the side. This is more of a PROJECTION. And the coloration on the fibers is not comparable to any PAINT available in the 1300s. There is no saturation of the fibers as paint would behave. The bloodstains do, in fact, show paint-type characteristics. The image is created using only ONE color; to show the shading, it is a difference in quantity of the scorch-like detail on the fibers. And it is a scorch-type marking, there are no pigments, nothing dissolves by any known solvent, and the marking does not penetrate like paint would. The image does not exhibit any artifacts of painting, either: no brush strokes, no angle of application. It's dead on, similar to the technique called "dotting." However... it's on the microscopic level, and microscopes hadn't been invented in the 1300s.

As for a "properly designed digitizng algorithm," the distance of the fabric from the skin varies. To my knowledge, unless the variance is predictable, you wouldn't be able to generate this algorithm.

What gets me is the way the "non-believers" demand scientific studies to show what the Figure is NOT, all the while offering suppositions as to what it most likely IS. How about digging up some proof that the figure is a fraud, it was painted by this person because of the brushstrokes and other signature techniques.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[ifriit]

VOW: A portrait would not necessarily show shading proportionate to the features of a face. The lighting for portraits is indirect, and off to the side. This is more of a PROJECTION.

This is primarily an issue of semantics--"portrait" is also an accurate descriptor.

VOW: And the coloration on the fibers is not comparable to any PAINT available in the 1300s. There is no saturation of the fibers as paint would behave. The bloodstains do, in fact, show paint-type characteristics. The image is created using only ONE color; to show the shading, it is a difference in quantity of the scorch-like detail on the fibers. And it is a scorch-type marking, there are no pigments, nothing dissolves by any known solvent, and the marking does not penetrate like paint would. The image does not exhibit any artifacts of painting, either: no brush strokes, no angle of application. It's dead on, similar to the technique called "dotting." However... it's on the microscopic level, and microscopes hadn't been invented in the 1300s.

Source?

VOW: As for a "properly designed digitizng algorithm," the distance of the fabric from the skin varies. To my knowledge, unless the variance is predictable, you wouldn't be able to generate this algorithm.

So how did the programmers who allegedly generated a 3D model from it do it?

VOW: What gets me is the way the "non-believers" demand scientific studies to show what the Figure is NOT, all the while offering suppositions as to what it most likely IS.

I'm guessing it's because "magic image created by the Christ" ranks around "painted by cockatrice claws dipped in bigfoot blood" in my mental list of likely possibilities.

VOW: How about digging up some proof that the figure is a fraud, it was painted by this person because of the brushstrokes and other signature techniques.

Simple, I don't know of any studies about the composition of the shroud, and don't have enough interest to do serious research at a library.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Because VOW it is property of a Church that has no interest in releasing it for intensive study.

Also remember this thread was started by one claiming to have SCIENTIFIC evidence that it was not a fraud but real. Until this person did this the shroud had not been even talked about in over a year if I remember right.

Now that the "scientific" evidence has been cast into doubt that leaves only faith and you are not going to convince many on faith only grounds.