|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Shroud of Turin
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 And you seem unable to hold a conversation with someone who doesn’t share your beliefs and opinions without insulting them. You yourself essentially admitted that when you couldn’t commit to a respectful debate on creationism that was free of insults. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew Can you explain how your piece is relevant? |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew Furthermore, it was written by a contemporary devout Christian. Hardly anything anyone could consider evidence. Surely there as a clearer, more concise way to make your point - Whatever it was. Unless itwas just an opportunity to share the good news |
|||||||||||||||
|
Can you find something else to argue about - and with someone else as well? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew |
|||||||||||||||
|
Now that I think of it |
|||||||||||||||
|
You have written sexually graphic posts on more than one occasion that are obviously not PG-13. In my opinion, you should not be a moderator in this club. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew If I’ve violated GK rules, I’ve remedied the lapses. I eagerly await you pointing out my violations and, of course, how I can improve as a Mod. Just please, in your own words, not scripture. Btw, Jesus and I are cool. It’s many of his followers that give me pause. And yeah, all religions irritate me. |
|||||||||||||||
|
You’re welcome. <<If I’ve violated GK rules,>> You do so on a near daily basis, particularly the prohibitions on insults, badgering, intentionally annoying and irritating other players, as well as prohibitions on sexually explicit, vulgar, obscene, rude, abusive and hateful language. <<I’ve remedied the lapses.>> Not all of them. Not by a long shot. <<I eagerly await you pointing out my violations>> I think I’ll just report them instead. But only the ones in your club. Your tendency, in my experience, is to only violate GK rules in other clubs so your club is not at risk of suspension. <<and, of course, how I can improve as a Mod.>> One standard for everyone. Not double standards. <<Just please, in your own words, not scripture.>> I’ll do it however I want. If you object to Scripture, too bad. Why do you get to say how I write something or make a point? <<Btw, Jesus and I are cool. It’s many of his followers that give me pause.>> Sure, I can see that. But you seem to think your behavior in here is not insulting and abusive. Even Jesus Christ reached His limits with hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and with blasphemy when He overturned the tables of money changers in the Temple. <<And yeah, all religions irritate me.>> That’s fine. But we have freedom of religion in the United States. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Sep-22, 06:00 |
Back to the Shroud mdpi-res.com It is an X-ray study of the shroud and it shows rather convincingly that the age of the shroud is round about 2000 years. There are included interesting explanations for why the earlier high-quality carbon dating published in 1988-89 may have artefactually given a much younger age. The only matter that I still find confusing has to do with the main prior argument against the conclusions of the 1988 work, viz. that the samples of the cloth would actually have been from parts of the shroud that were repaired (in the Middle Ages). The sample taken for the recent X-ray analysis is from the very same area of the shroud, but now there is no mention of repaired areas. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Stalhandske |
|||||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic So give me a break with that "proof", because equally as bias, and even if the shroud IS correctly dated as your link claims; Christ isn't the only person who was buried in cloth 2000 years ago. |
|||||||||||||||
|
mo-one |
|||||||||||||||
|
Victor I wonder, are there any other used 2000 year old burial shrouds laying about in someone's back closet? Ebay perhaps? The lack of curiosity and the quick, even glib dismissal of this unique artifact is quite an indictment of those who loudly profess to be so 'scientifically minded'. Is the blood still viable for modern DNA analysis? That would be wild. |
|||||||||||||||
|
thumper Stories about the shroud first began to appear during the 13th century, so one must wonder where it might have been for the previous 1200 years. Other 2000 year old examples? Not that I know of, but there are apparently a few thousand pounds of claimed cross pieces that are sacredly preserved. DNA analysis? We can't do it yet, thump, but who might you expect the DNA to bel traced to --- Mary and Joseph? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper 15:16 Blood DNA would be interesting. Between Jesus and the 'discovery' of the Shroud, there were a lot of Germanic invaders in Western Europe. Franks, Lombards, you name it! It would be interesting to see if there might be any Traces that match up with Germanic ancestry, but absent in Middle East Jewish groups. Or even if non-human blood is detected, which would point strongly to a fraud. The Y-chromosome would be very interesting, since the Virgin Birth suggests NO Y-chromosome should be present. If there is a Y-chromosome present, then would it be a 'special creation' that matches no known haplogroup? Who could ask for a better proof of the Virgin Birth? So many questions... |
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper Quick glib dismissal? You have zero idea how much anyone but you has spent reading about the shroud. Doesn’t stop you from loudly proclaiming that you know the truth. Anyone who disagrees with you must have just glibly dismissed all the evidence… after all, they disagree with you. 🙄 Also, the blood is red. Aged blood is dark brown. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Z At least Bob responded somewhat appropriately to a very interesting possibility. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper “The lack of curiosity and the quick, even glib dismissal of this unique artifact is quite an indictment of those who loudly profess to be so 'scientifically minded'. “ My bad. |
|||||||||||||||
|
One That alone means anything about it must be suspect. 1200 years of no vlear custody and no mention? Also, a modern-day team managed to reproduce the image with methods available to Middle Age artists — another blow to the theory that the Shroud could not have been painted. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Must we keep re litigating thing's that have already been established in this very thread? I swear it's like I'm communicating with Trump supporters. Zorro will you post a link to your claim that the image was successfully reproduced? And No it couldn't have been painted because there were no pigments, dye's or ink's found by.... Wait for it ... SCIENCE! |
|||||||||||||||
|
Here you go guys www.theguardian.com Should be easy |
|||||||||||||||
|
Also Walter McCrone, a chemist and expert in microscopy, conducted an independent analysis of samples borrowed from the Shroud by the STURP team in 1978. He reported that there was evidence consistent with pigments in the samples — a sign that someone had drawn at least parts of the image. His conclusion was that the Shroud had been created by a talented artist sometime in the Middle Ages. More recent research indicates that some of the bloodstains are unrealistic for a corpse wrapped laying down. Additionally, a modern-day team managed to reproduce the image with methods available to Middle Age artists — another blow to the theory that the Shroud could not have been painted. www.discovermagazine.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Walter McCrone, who was a very respected scientist and who allegedly worked with 32 samples, said his finding was "consistent with" the same terminology used to compare handwriting. Where they can not definitely say with certainty that someone wrote this. That it is " consistent with " It would have helped to find a published finding in the way of a scientific paper. But I did find his Book which can be purchased on Amazon. I would be very open to reviewing his work but sadly I'm not purchasing his book. This evidence (IMHO) is circumstantial at best and again, just words on a page. Also I would like to point out that I try very hard not to produce evidence from people who "Want to prove the shroud real" I know that I asked for the link, and I thank you for producing it. My only question is do you think or accert that this is evidence? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz |
|||||||||||||||
|
Zorroloco |
|||||||||||||||
|
Still though Back in 1988, a team of researchers was granted access to the Shroud of Turin—a small piece of cloth that many believe was used to cover the face of Christ after crucifixion. As part of the research effort, several research entities were chosen to examine individual pieces of cloth from the shroud, but in the end, only three were allowed to do so: The University of Arizona in the U.S., the Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland and Oxford University in the U.K. After testing was concluded, the researchers announced that all three research groups had dated their cloth snippets to a time between 1260 and 1390—evidence that the shroud was not from the time of Christ. But there was a problem with the findings—the Vatican, which owns the shroud, refused to allow other researchers access to the data. In this new effort, the research team sued the University of Oxford, which had the data, for access—and won. After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud—just some edge pieces. Edge pieces from the shroud are rumored to have been tampered with by nuns in the Middle Ages seeking to restore damage done to the shroud over the years. In a recent interview with L"Homme Nouveau, Tristan Casabianca, team lead on the new effort, claimed that the raw data from the 1988 tests showed that the test samples were heterogeneous, invalidating the results. “Rumored to have been tampered with…” phys.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
Zorroloco |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
