The story of the shroud is folklore, he is a folklorist, he showed it was a proved forgery in the Middle ages.
The alleged Gospel conflicts on the resurrection. Again, there is no reason to set the Bible aside, what you're bizarrely asking is to set the evidence aside. If you have evidence the Gospel writers were not trustworthy the burden is your to show that. You can't just say because it involves miracles we can disregard it. To dismiss testimony because it comes from a Christian is bigotry, not debate. I'm sure you believe that. Speak for yourself, a couple billion people would disagree with you. More circular reasoning. And a lot of the scientific evidence supports the Shroud as genuine, you are naive and uninformed if you don't understand that. So who gained? All the apostles got was persecution and death. I want in on that action, LOL. Do you know anyone who knowingly died for a lie, as you bizarrely claim? Again, if you are claiming the apostles aren't trustworthy the burden is yours to show that, and simplistically saying because you've never seen a miracle so they must have lied doesn't count. So do you, unless you can tell me what set off the Big Bang or how did the first non-life become life. Atheists don't know, but they *know* God wasn't a part of it. Your ludicrous caricature you mean? Try again. - - - Updated - - - You completely dodged my points on that, answer them, if you can.
Uhhh...no. The official report of the dating process, written by the people who performed the sampling, states that the sample "came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."[67] In 2008 former STURP member John Jackson rejected the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. Jackson stated that this could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition In December 2010 Professor Timothy Jull, a member of the original 1988 radiocarbon-dating team and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon, coauthored an article with a textile expert in that journal. They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in 1988 for the carbon dating exercise, and found no evidence of a repair, nor of any dyes or other treatments. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material. LINK...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin As I stated Radiometric Dating does not lie. AboveAlpha...p.s...but University personal with direct ties and paychecks coming from the Vatican do lie!
No the relict trade was part of Crusade movements...I am certain the shroud was painted in the middle east. Pilgrims, who threw money like crazy at things like this. In fact we do know how it could have been done. The hardest part is that the shroud is not studied in the way that could be proved one way or the other. But funny story. Joe Nichol....you know that guy you all poopoo....he made a shroud....a photo of it wound up in a book as the real shroud by a believer. But again, a bishop in the 1400s got a confession from the forger....sucks to be unable to get past that.
Read each account. Compare them. The bible is not evidence. It is fiction. Nice try, but sorry. YOU are claiming the gospel writers are recording history. Prove it. It's not up to me to disprove your fantastical claims. YOU made the claims, YOU support them. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All you have is fables confected long after the fact by people with a very strong vested interest in fabricating them. And absolutely not one shred of evidence of any kind outside your magic book. This is why I ask you to set your fiction aside and produce extra-biblical evidence. Oops, there is none. Well, back to the fiction... Not even the writers of the gospels claim to have seen any of it themselves. Have you READ the gospels? You don't seem to have any clue what evidence is. If a couple of billion people think the world is flat and the sun goes around it, is that enough people to make it come true? If a couple of billion people think disease is caused by evil spells, does that make it true? How about if FOUR billion people believed it. Would it be even truer? Then produce some evidence outside your bible. Go ahead. Just as a thought experiment, assume for a moment that the gospels are entirely fictional. Now, how would you show otherwise? Remember, you can't use the bible, since we're assuming it's fiction. And if you have not one shred of evidence outside the bible, and we're assuming the bible is fiction, what's your best conclusion? You haven't made it clear what you mean by "genuine". What I'm reading is a lot of ambiguity, due to inadequate testing or disputed test results. That's not "a lot of scientific evidence", that's a LACK of scientific evidence. How do you know there were any apostles? Remember, you can't use the bible, it's fiction. What other evidence do you have that ANY of these characters ever existed? Hey, you are assuming what you are setting out to demonstrate! I claim there never was an apostle. Show that I'm wrong not using the bible. You know, with real evidence. YOU made the claim they existed, YOU made the claim they suffered, YOU made the claim they are trustworthy. SUPPORT your claims. Go ahead. Because you think so? The Big Bang is a set of proposals that best fit current observations. No observations can yet tell us what caused it, so the only possible answer is "we have no idea." Unless we Make Stuff Up. There are several working proposals about the origin of life as we know it, and you can read about them in detail if you wish. But "we don't know" does NOT mean your god must have dunnit. It means we don't know.
Atheists don't claim to know that god was not involved. Rather, we acknowledge that the evidence that exists for these things does not point to the Abrahamic god any more than it points to the numerous other gods that people do and have believed in. Therefore, there isn't any reason to believe a god is the cause. Furthermore, gods have such a horrible track record as explanations for natural phenomena that there is more than ample reason to not even consider them as possibilities. Not to mention that there isn't any scientific evidence for their existence in the first place.
not a bit of it. if your boy re-grows a few limbs or similar - in rigorously observed conditions, I'd sign up. not specifically for jesus, but a general god acknowledgement
Crank , the shroud is much more then a sheet and you know it. Claiming that it may or may not be authentic doesn't change the mountain of evidences for its authenticity which you seem to want to deny any chance you get. If something is real, it doesn't require extraordinary evidence at all. It just requires evidence. For atheists they will deny 99% evidence because it goes against their faith based and biased atheistic beliefs but when the situation is switched they will gladly take non peer reviewed evidence and stand by it with faith based conviction . This is not what is called a free thinker. This is the thinking of dogmatic cultist which the atheists on here have shown to be. As I said before the shroud has very compelling evidence for authenticity and the most reasonable explanation for that image is the resurrection. Art historian and agnostic Thomas de Wesselow was at least honest enough to admit this also, but you and your merry band of atheists just won't concede what makes the most sense from all the evidences available on the shroud. Atheism is a emotional worldview not an honest or intellectual one.
No you wouldn't at all crank because you shown yourself to have an emotional biased towards God in how you will dodge and accept non peer reviewed evidence for your side of the argument. You might be fooling yourself my friend, but you aren't fooling any of the honest seekers and lurkers that may be viewing these posts here, and this was why I came on this thread, to show that in fact atheists operate with even more faith then us believers and will not in fact believe no matter what God would do. If you won't even concede the strong evidence on the shroud then how can you expect us to believe that you would accept even stronger evidence. You can lie to us but you can't lie to yourself, and one day when you find that you were terribly wrong and your standing in front of God telling him how you wouldn't even allow him to throw u bread crumb to follow honestly it will be too late for you since you won't need any faith at all to know that he does in fact exist. An honest seeker understands what's at stake here and will seek the truth with all his heart , but you aren't doing that crank. You will twist, deceive and follow any evidence no matter how anti scientific it is to justify staying an atheist . If it quacks like a cult, walks by a cult and thinks like a cult, it is in fact a cult.
Attempting to bring into the mix atheists concerning the fact proved by Radiometric Carbon Dating is disingenuous to the debate of this topic. There exists ZERO EVIDENCE to support the validity of assertions the shroud is that of Jesus....and the current new dating is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Shameful really and sad. AboveAlpha
The bolded part above is lunacy. You're saying that the most reasonable explanation is resurrection, which even by theist claims has never happened any other time, over natural and human-based processes that can be demonstrated repeatedly and have happened an uncountable number of times. It's like claiming that a magician is actually doing magic rather than utilizing slight of hand when he makes a coin disappear.
are you on drugs? if not, please read this carefully. if god demonstrated his/her existence in the conventional, quantifiable, measurable and repeatable way, I'd be happy to give him consideration as a real entity. I may even join one of his/her fan clubs. I don't seek god, but if he shows up I'll shake his hand.
Here we go again. You can't call the c14 tests a fact because it has been shown from peer reviewed chemical analysis that what they dated wasnt from the shroud , and it's apparent you haven't read agnostic chemist ray Rogers paper in thermochimica acta, but then again you aren't interested in science are you, unless it backs up atheism. The 88 tests were debunked by many other evidences as I have pointed out twice allready in my old posts that you have chosen to ignore . Above alpha please tell us if the 88 c14 tests included a chemical analysis to make sure the corner tested was the same chemically as the rest of the shroud. Please tell us if the corner test positive for vanillin and whether any other area of the shroud tested positive for vanillin. These are scientific facts,and if they showed up in favor of your atheistic beliefs you would have hailed them as proof that the shroud is a forgery, but because they go against your atheistic beliefs you just deny them with all the vigor you can muster. You have chosen to stay an atheist, and your position is a dogmatic as well as emotional one. The 1988 c14 tests have been invalidated a long time back. You can choose to stick your head in the ground but that won't make them go away. And it's playing right into our hands. Seekers and people sitting on the fennec will see how atheists will ignore science , deny, dodge and emotional ridicule the shroud and it will make them want to research it even more. The shroud is not made for antiscience atheists as they have made up their minds and must deny the shroud at all costs, even if it means abandoning their beliefs in science, logic and rational thinking as well as honest enquiry. In other words, mission accomplished
Your looking for absolute 100% proof which can never be had. If God suddenly grew limbs on someone you would also find a way to deny it. How do I know this? Because of how you approached any evidence for the shroud's authenticity. You may claim no bias but you have a big time bias here.
I have already provided very detailed information which proves that the area tested was part of the shroud and NOT some Middle ages patchwork. You are talking about chemistry and science you don't either understand or are just spouting something you read on a pro-christian website. I am not an Atheist by the way. AboveAlpha
Wait a minute dude, your claiming lunacy on my end and your at the same time saying that if something can't be repeated in a lab over and over again that it couldn't have happened? This is lunacy at its greatest point. This is called scientism, the belief that something can't be true unless it's repeated in a lab. There is a mountain of evidence here that points towards authenticity. This is a fact whether u like it or not. The image is a picture perfect description of the passion and crucifixion of Jesus.it's been kept by the church throughout the ages and venerated as the burial shroud of Christ. The technology that made that image is beyond 21st century technology to replicate. It has xray information (X-rays come from some sort of radiation ) as well as 3d spatial,information encoded into the image. No forger throughout history could have replicated it. The only event that was recorded that we know of that could have accomplished all this was the resurrection. It doesn't reasonable point to any other event. What's lunacy is that you can't concede this. Once you concede that the mountain of evidence for authenticity you come face to face with the image itself. Now u less you can show me someone in ancient history that has an xray machine, can encode 2d spatial information into an image and and add all the evidences perfectly that I would say that it's very reasonable to say that the resurrection caused this image. Can it be repeated in lab. Of course not. If you want to hold onto the very shallow philosophy of scientism the you are more the obliged, but we both know that there are many things that we believe in that science cannot show. It is you my friend that refuses to take an honest look at the shroud or anything that points towards God, not because there isn't evidence but because you have an emotional bias against God existing. Instead you will hold onto a worldview emotionally that has no evidence,no ultimate meaning, no ultimate hope and no ultimate purpose. This is the ultimate in lunacy and the seekers that are lurking here will understand this.the shroud isn't for most atheists as they made up their minds and no evidence will change it. Can someone move those goalposts back please lol
As I said before, that isn't chemical analysis, so again your being dishonest when you claim that chemical tests show that the corner was chemically the same as the other areas of the shroud. My God dude, you are ignoring the peer reviewed chemical analysis done by Ray Rogers . Your also ignoring that French invisible reweavers were some of the best of all time and they can also fool textile experts. What they couldn't fool was an expert chemist like Ray Rogers from Los alamos labs whose peer reviewed work showed conclusively that the corner area wasnt the same chemically as the rest of the shroud. You will take the eye of textile expert over pure chemical analysis??? I thought you were for science and not against it looool Rogers also found an end to end cotton splice and this splice wasnt found anywhere else on the shroud. Rogers found madder dye in the corner area and no where else on the shroud. The corner are tested positive for vanillin and the rest of the area tested negative. These are peer reviewed chemical results, not visual analysis. Last time I checked most science lovers will accept peer reviewed chemical analysis over the visual eye of a textile expert who themselves have stated they can be fooled. Alpha, you simply won't accept the facts here which makes you against science. Maybe your an atheist maybe your an agnostic, maybe your neither(by the way your timidity in voicing yoir worldview beliefs also is a clue as well) but you definitely have a bias against the shroud in how you keep denying peer reviewed scientific research which shows conclusively that the corner was different chemically then the rest of the shroud. Why? Because your dishonest
And that post has been soundly debunked. Now lets see you debunk the peer reviewed chemical analysis research of Los alamos labs Chemist and senior fellow Ray Rogers, which is very well accepted. http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF First the dye found in the corner area The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about a.d. 1291 and was not common until more than 100 years later [6]. The combined evi- dence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly differ- ent from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for de- termining the age of the shroud. No spouting here, this is pure chemical analysis which comes from a well respected chemist with impeccable credentials, but then against you won't believe an expert because you claim your not an atheist and have no bias against the shroud lol. And he also showed by testing the vanillin content of the corner area that it tested positive for vanillin while the rest of the shroud tested negative . Rogers got his dating range of between 1300 and 3000 years from calculating different storage temperatures. The major problem in estimating the age of the shroud is the fact that the rate law is exponential; i.e., the maximum di- urnal temperature is much more important than is the lowest storage temperature. However, some reasonable storage tem- peratures can be considered to give a range of predicted ages. If the shroud had been stored at a constant 25◦C, it would have taken about 1319 years to lose a conservative 95% of its vanillin. At 23 ◦C, it would have taken about 1845 years. At 20 ◦C, it would take about 3095 years. If the shroud had been produced between a.d. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in a.d. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the ra- diocarbon laboratories reported. I will take care of the end to end splice in my next post. And as far as alpha claiming that the test piece was from the main area of the shroud , that is a bold faced lie. In fact what the sturp team knew was that historically that corner was the most handled and was probably most susceptible to wearing and tearing.
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/rogersmindchange.html Rogers confirmed the existence of embedded cotton fibers in the area of the carbon dating sample, while noting that such cotton fibers are not found in other samples from anywhere else on the shroud. Gilbert Raes, a textile expert, had first found cotton fibers in 1973. He assumed, and everyone assumed at the time, that this was representative of the whole cloth. It turns out that it was not. Thousands of fiber samples taken from the main part of the Shroud reveal no cotton, whatsoever. So alpha please spare me the ad Homs and please deal with the peer reviewed chemical findings from a well respected Los alamos chemist with impeccable credentials. I know I know, you will ignore Rogers research because you have no dog to hunt here and your an honest seeker who relies basically on Wikipedia papers as your scientific guide.
Taikoo is alpha your hero? I guess you love to follow people that ignore peer reviewed chemical work and rely on visual work and Wikipedia links lol. Ra raaaa raaaa for alpha . Now watch as your hero will ignore the peer reviewed chemical research from Ray Rogers to show us how honest and unbiased he is and opting to go with non chemical analysis work disprove the peer reviewed chemical work. Now I know that alpha is either an atheist or sympathetic towards the non scientific and emotional worldview of atheism.
