Reply With Quote
No, you did not.
It most likely can't be replicated because its almost impossible to authentically age that type of fabricate in a short period of time. The markings are unique not just to the shroud but also unique by exposure and location.
You don't seem to understand what cons utes proof or better yet empirical data. The inability to replicate hundreds of years of degradation in no way proves its origin to be of Christ or not of.
Go ahead and post the source you're referencing that proves its a gift of Christ, its origin and its his likeness.
No, you did not.
I did. You have to have faith you son of a god.
I don't know if it's real or not but my wife and I did go see the shroud last year and it was quite an experience. I'd recommend it to anyone, believers or not.
Even more recommended would be to take the tour of the excavations beneath St. Peters Basilica. Incredible experience.
If you don't want to believe and need proof that is your problem, not mine.
Doubting Thomas is a good story for you.
It most certainly is your problem when you claim it be something that has yet to be proven. You condescendingly addressed a few members in this thread as if the "nonbelievers" were beneath you or somehow not "in the know". If you're going the claim something to be fact or authentic then back it up.
Don't address the issue as a matter of fact address the issue as "I believe" or "we believe" or "its my opinion". If you address the issue as an absolute matter of fact then the burden of proof falls on you because you're the one making the claim. If you're incapable of rationalizing something of historical significance then don't engage in these conversations just take your "faith" or your "belief" and take them away because a conversation or better yet a debate is no place for a lack of rationalization and contemplation.
Emily Post's The Guide to Good Manners for Kids is a good book for you.
This would be something that I would love to do. Probably moreso than seeing a burial cloth from the middle ages (though its possible ties to the Templar knights would be pretty interesting to me).
This gets into epistemology and from there likely deteriorates into solipsisms.
It happens every time. That's why I don't go too far into it with blind faithers.
The evolution of Chuck Norris.
Why does the one on the left still exist?
They should have been evolved and long extict by now.
This topic is another example of how flawed carbon dating really is.
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/carbon...rin-shroud.htm
You can take three bone samples off a toe of a dinosaur in a museum and send all three to three different carbon dating testing labs and receive three different dates. Ranging 4 thousand years to 4 million years all the way down to 400 years. Send them again to Three others sites gets Three different times again. It's only real Science on when Scientist want to call it Science or not... it depends on if they like the results they get after testing.
Example
A:
After testing if Scientist "like" the results?
Scientist are pleased and they now proved the Bible wrong, This is not the fabric that was used on Jesus This is further proof Carbon Dating is a respected "Science" and it proves that the Shroud of Turin is fake.
Example
B:
After testing if Scientist "dislike" the results?
Scientist are not pleased Carbon Dating proved the dirt sample on the bottom of the Grand canyon are no more than a few years old and are not "2 Million" years old like we claimed in the text books from the Dirt samples taken above the Grand Canyon .
So therefore.... Carbon dating is not really the final word .... after all, Isn't Science constantly "Refore vising" itself?
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/carbon...rin-shroud.htm
Last edited by mouse; 12-29-2011 at 09:53 PM.
Nice deflection.
Instead of trivializing the debunkers how about contributing precisely what authenticates the shroud as that of Christ? I don't recall any of that data being tossed around.
Facts are facts, if they deflect lies and unproven theories?
that really is not under my control.
In 1988 radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Ins ute of Technology,
What part of "tossed around" do you not get?
Some of you toss around the word "theory" like it means "hunch".
The only thing deflected is you from the original debate. Which was my point. Bringing up the flaws in evolution doesn't bring or take away credibility from those who claim the shroud to be authentic. You deflected from the topic in order to attack a completely separate issue.
Why not discuss the shroud instead of attempting to bring other theories to the table.
Just so we're clear what are your thoughts on the Shroud? Obviously we're not debating whether or not its authentic. Its clearly a Shroud.
So the question is.
Is it the Shroud of Christ or not?
mouse is the king of non-sequiturs and straw men. Trying to have a serious conversation with him is futile, and he will eventually run away.
Blatant, damn near patented fallacious arguments are the first sign I look for before running the opposite way.
Mono check your pm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
