X-rays are not UV. 34 terawatts of UV radiation - even in a microsecond pulse - would have blown the shroud to bits. I've been an engineer for the past 30 years, and measuring devices regularly malfunction and cease to work. And the more important the measurement is, the more likely the instrument is to fail. It's not due to Jesus. It's due to Murphy. And this is truly the bottom line. Most Christians are not scientists. If they believe strongly enough that the Shroud is real, it makes them feel good. It makes them feel like they can "catch a glimpse of Jesus." And that fervent desire overcomes any scientific rigor. They truly believe what they want, no matter what the facts - because if they believe, they can think they have seen Jesus. And if they are proven wrong later? Their careers won't suffer. They are not scientists who can be shown to be putting religious belief above objectivity.
Astonishingly, the guy postulating some of these wackadoo claims to be a scientist: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...8/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html Haven't looked into his credentials, but... yikes. I'm not remotely a scientist, and yet I've been obsessing over Newton's laws of motion for the past couple of days just to make damn certain all my calculations regarding a very minimal, human-powered piston-and-lever espresso extraction device meet the criteria for the Italian Espresso National Institute standards--and this guy's going on about some preposterous "blast of 'exceptional radiation'".
Not gonna watch the stupid video, but is the creator now alleging that Egon Schiele's got something to do with this?
Agree, however there is another possible way to view your example. Just because someone “objects” to any given point, does not make their objection truth, therefore, responding is not always required. A makes a claim. B objects. A does not respond because: 1) B’s objection is wrong, irrelevant or is being ignored due to tone/attitude. 2) It could also be that A rejects B’s objections or just disagrees with B’s position. A therefore, is entitled to carry on with same point, not necessarily in a deceptive manner. However your also correct.
I agree that there is no necessary obligation to respond to foolish or baseless objections. However, if you make a contentious claim and somebody takes the time to make a reasonable argument against your claim (or to raise sensible questions about it), then in a discussion where that claim is a central point in dispute you shouldn't really be able to get away with ignoring the counter-argument (or questions). Or, to put it another way, astute people will notice if you consistently turn a blind eye to things that might undermine your position. 1. If B's objection is wrong, but not obviously so, it might be appropriate to explain what's wrong with it. (This should be read along with the adage that nothing is obvious until you make it so. What seems obvious to you might very well not be at all obvious to your readers.) 2. Sure, but rejection without giving a reason starts to look suspicious if the objection itself is not, on the face of it, unreasonable. I guess my point is that there's deliberately telling lies and there's telling lies by omission. At some point, if you're making a contentious claim, you need to face up to the counterarguments that you're aware of. I take your point, too.
Why aren’t people providing good answers to every single argument I have presented? Indeed, why haven’t you James? Just wondering as an aside... ...does Sciforums.com make more money from advertising with higher traffic counts, and more posts?
As far as I know, they found no paint on the Shroud in the image area. And photographic methods did not exist at the time. If both of these are true, by what method was the negative image made?
Probably the same reason you haven't provided good replies to every single one of your arguments we've shot down.
Giulio Fanti use[d] highly dubious tests to supposedly authenticate the shroud as Jesus’ burial cloth. Further: [the shroud samples] being passed around among devotees (including Fanti) ... cannot be authenticated as having come from the Turin cloth
In post #94, I remarked that even if the shroud does have an ancient origin (a leap) and even if it has a supernatural origin (a much bigger leap), how do we know that the ancient supernatural origin was in fact Jesus and not some other ancient wonder-worker like Apollonius of Tyana. Looking back at that post, I see that Sideshowbob had already been asking the same question. You replied in post #101 with the assertion that the image shows a crown of thorns and that a crown of thorns is something unique to Jesus. Then in post #137 I posted a detailed image-enhanced version of the head and face from the shroud. It's difficult for me to perceive any crown of thorns in that image. So the crown-of-thorns argument in #101 seems to be weaker if we actually look at the image than when we don't, and we are back with the original question in #94.
If I gave you ten pieces of evidence that all point to Shiva, Vishnu or Jan's Krishna, would you accept them? Even if that would mean rejecting your own Christianity? Or would you set the acceptability bar much higher for evidence of the truth of competing religions than for evidence of your own? We all do that. We are much more credulous about evidence of things that we want to believe in than about things that contradict our deeply held beliefs. Everyone comes to these kind of evidence evaluation tasks with their biases, their faith commitments, already in place. Christian commitments in the case of Christians like yourself, naturalistic and even atheistic commitments in the case of the self-styled 'skeptics'. All I can say is that I'm left unconvinced by your arguments. Of course, I approached them from the initial viewpoint of an agnostic. That's my bias. But I do welcome you making your arguments. At the very least, convincing or not, they are an example of what JamesR was seemingly asking for when he challenged our theists to post their evidences for their god(s). You've stepped up to that challenge very well and I respect that.
The burden is yours to first put forth good evidence that needs to be answered. When your evidence is called out as flimsy at-best, and downright dishonest at-worst, you simply pretend you didn't see it and repeat your claims. This is dishonest.
The tests on the Shroud remind me of creationist claims - e.g. the radiometric dating of the earth is wrong because Niagara Falls is only a few thousand years old. If you really, really want to believe something is true, a bad test trumps a good one.
As a Christian, my take on the SoT is this. It matters not if it’s actually Jesus’s burial cloth or not, ( with his actual image ) there is more than enough other evidence to show God is real and that Christianity is the one true “religion” on earth. I have not looked to deeply into the SoF myself. It’s an interesting item tho for sure. What would such a garment look like after a person is resurrected? Who knows and who could tell. That’s the point of the supernatural, it’s supernatural. It breaks the natural norm, therefore, is completely foreign to our natural senses and tests. I could see ( imagine ) such an “image” perhaps “printing” its self on such cloth, but it’s hard to tell for sure.
Or so some people, those deeply attached to the divine origin of the Shroud, allege. The nuns in the 1200's who supposedly repaired the Shroud after it was damaged wouldn't have interweaved medieval fibers into the existing fabric of the Shroud. They would have applied a patch, which was all their technology allowed. So do we really know that the 1988 test was conducted on material taken from a patch and not from the Shroud itself? One would think that researchers would have snipped a small sample off the edge of the shroud itself. Interesting to know I guess, but it doesn't seem to advance the case that the image on the Shroud is a supernatural image of Jesus Christ. Yes, that's the most interesting aspect to me. What is the image? Is it a color change of the threads in the fabric themselves or some sort of pigment added to the fabric? Why is the image on the actual Shroud a negative image like what's seen on an old-style photographic negative? I don't know the answers at this point, but don't feel the need to introduce supernatural or specifically Christian assumptions. I can speculate (that's all it is) that if this is indeed somebody's burial shroud, that body might have started leaking body fluids after some time in a warm climate. So the surface of the body might have become wet with lymph or something like that. And I can imagine some organic constitutent of that fluid interacting chemically with the fabric or some dye in the fabric or something, creating an image that's darkest where the fabric is in closest contact with the body. That seems to be consistent with what we seem to see with the face, where the nose is darkest and the more sunken eyes lightest. The tops of the arms and legs are darkest. We naturally tend to interpret the image as light falling upon an object. But perhaps it's more consistent with points of contact of a cloth lying atop an object. It's all just speculation, though it does suggest some avenues for further investigation. I don't think that it's all that easy to identify botanical specimens only from pollen grains. I remember trying to identify California native plants that I'd collected, using a very good 'Flora' (Jepson as I recall, kind of canonical for California), back when I was studying botany in my university days. Not an easy task. It typically required much more of the plant than its pollen, particularly its flowers where the pollen had come from. So I'm a bit skeptical about that. Besides, most native plant species aren't specific to tiny little areas like a single city. They will typically be found over larger areas than that. So that's another thing that makes me a bit skeptical.
One man’s flimsy evidence is another’s awesome evidence. Is there irrefutable evidence that SoT is a fake or is it one of those grey areas where bias and interpretation are king?
