Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Feb '14 19:36 / 4 edits
    http://phys.org/news/2014-02-earthquake-carbon-dating-shroud-turin.html

    Anyone ever hear of such things? I wonder if this could be reproduced somehow.

    Even if it dated to 33 AD, that alone is not proof it is JC.

    http://link.springer.com/journal/11012

    This is the link to Meccanica, looks like an authentic science journal.

    a group of researchers led by Alberto Carpinteri of the Politecnico di Torino in Italy in an article published in Springer's journal Meccanica.

    Is this bunch just pushing an agenda or are they independent of religious bias?
  2. Standard member forkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    11 Feb '14 20:38
    I like the first comment on the article:


    SoylentGrin5
    They already have an answer they want. They'll keep trying different questions until they get it.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Feb '14 22:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    I like the first comment on the article:


    [b]SoylentGrin5

    They already have an answer they want. They'll keep trying different questions until they get it.
    [/b]
    I like the second one too: So Resurrections causes earthquakes?
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    12 Feb '14 00:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I like the second one too: So Resurrections causes earthquakes?
    The dating of the shroud of Turin is really unimportant, because there is no known way to get an accurate date on it anyway. The important thing is that all the evidence points to the fact that it is at least 99% certain to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, because it has a miracle image of evidence of the details of his crucifixion murder that fits exactly with the unique way Jesus Christ is reported to have been executed by the Romans as told in the Christian New Testament.

    There is just too much evidence in support of its authenticity to even worry about discovering a method to accurately date the Shroud. Any reasonable person would not dismiss the overwhelming verifiable evidence that it is what it has always been claimed to be thoughout its history because of not having a accurate way to date it.

    If this were a fake created by some genius in the past, one would first need to show how some person could possible know about technologies we have today so these features about the Shroud could only be detected today. They would also have to discover new technologies that are unknown today that could place this miracle image on the cloth. Scientists that have examined the Shroud of Turin say there is no known way to produce an image that has ALL of the properties exhibited by the image on the Shroud. Plus this person would have had to collected and placed all the plants with there pollen that only grow in certain areas on the Shroud to make it appear that it had been in Jerusalem, Turkey, etc. to agree with the historical movement of the Shroud from Jerusalem to its present location.

    That is only a fraction of the problems a person or a team of experts trying to fake the Shroud as the burial cloth of Christ would have to overcome. I see no other conclusion, consdering what is known about the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo other than these two cloths are the burial cloth of Jesus and the table napkin used to cover the face as Jesus was taken down from the cross.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 Feb '14 11:17
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The dating of the shroud of Turin is really unimportant, because there is no known way to get an accurate date on it anyway. The important thing is that all the evidence points to the fact that it is at least 99% certain to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, because it has a miracle image of evidence of the details of his crucifixion murder that fits exac ...[text shortened]... oth of Jesus and the table napkin used to cover the face as Jesus was taken down from the cross.
    Your 99% number is as bogus as anything else you foist on people. There is ZERO evidence it came from JC, only someone's image is there, could be a cobbler for all you know.
  6. 12 Feb '14 11:56 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Your 99% number is as bogus as anything else you foist on people. There is ZERO evidence it came from JC, only someone's image is there, could be a cobbler for all you know.
    perhaps he thinks;

    "evidence" = "whatever you personally want to be true and only if RJHinds approves"

    or, perhaps more simply:

    "evidence" = "whatever RJHinds believes" (which is whatever he wants and ignoring the evidence )
  7. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    12 Feb '14 21:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Your 99% number is as bogus as anything else you foist on people. There is ZERO evidence it came from JC, only someone's image is there, could be a cobbler for all you know.
    No it could not be anybody but Jesus Christ.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 Feb '14 09:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No it could not be anybody but Jesus Christ.
    Delusional as usual.
  9. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    16 Feb '14 04:01
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Your 99% number is as bogus as anything else you foist on people. There is ZERO evidence it came from JC, only someone's image is there, could be a cobbler for all you know.
    Okay, maybe 99% is not exact, but it is close enough for me.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 Feb '14 21:15
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Okay, maybe 99% is not exact, but it is close enough for me.
    If someone showed you fish bones they said was from JC feeding thousands from one fish, you would not question it, just automatically believe.
  11. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    16 Feb '14 22:44
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    If someone showed you fish bones they said was from JC feeding thousands from one fish, you would not question it, just automatically believe.
    Well, you believe everything about these bones evolutionist dig up and claim is our ancestor or is millions of years old.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Feb '14 17:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, you believe everything about these bones evolutionist dig up and claim is our ancestor or is millions of years old.
    Interesting lack of denial there.
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    17 Feb '14 21:14
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Interesting lack of denial there.
    I am just pointing out that you are concerned with the tiny splinter in my eye, when you should be concerned about the plank in your own.
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    18 Feb '14 00:11
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am just pointing out that you are concerned with the tiny splinter in my eye, when you should be concerned about the plank in your own.
    Wow, such originality, such charm, such wisdom. Any other platitudes you want to bring to the table, sidetracking the missing denial?
  15. 18 Feb '14 10:44
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No it could not be anybody but Jesus Christ.
    Why not?