Originally posted by RJHindsSo we come back to the fact that you will not actually accept any result that goes against your beliefs.
The result has to make sense, numbnuts.
So you were incorrect when you said:
You are being like FMF now and misrepresenting what I have said.
as I was, in fact, accurately representing what you had said.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe insolvable problem here is that you are unable or unwilling to comprehend
If anyone, scientist or layperson, produced "convincing proof" that the earth was a million years old or the Shroud of Turin was faked, I would believe it.
the evidence. Your definition of "convincing proof" is proof that you
are able to understand. Fortunately for the rest of the world "convincing proof" has a different and far more realistic meaning.
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is no level of proof that would convince you. You could be taken in a time machine to look at Jesus and when he was nowhere to be found you would say we are in the wrong universe.
If anyone, scientist or layperson, produced "convincing proof" that the earth was a million years old or the Shroud of Turin was faked, I would believe it.
P.S. That means one piece of proof is not enough to be convincing. There must be at least two pieces of strong evidence with no contradicting evidence that puts those pieces of proof in doubt.
Your brain is stuck on its brainwashing, which your Paulism faith has done well.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot at all. 😏
So we come back to the fact that you will not actually accept any result that goes against your beliefs.
So you were incorrect when you said:
[b]You are being like FMF now and misrepresenting what I have said.
as I was, in fact, accurately representing what you had said.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds1. We don't have access to the Shroud of Turin, so producing proof is somewhat difficult.
I haven't seen any proof yet. Give up? 😏
2. Any proof we did produce would be rejected by you as you readily admit.
3. We have no significant interest in producing the proof, partly because of 2., but mostly because we all know it is a fake, and even if it was 'genuine' it is not evidence for anything of significance ie with sufficient study, it might be possible to show that it was used as a burial cloth for someone who died in the middle east at around the time that Jesus supposedly lived, but there would still be no evidence that it was Jesus' or that any claims about Jesus were true.
So, no, nobody has given up, because nobody was interested in trying in the first place.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd now the Vatican will not let any more cloth be taken so exactly how are scientists supposed to test it? I assume if it was you there at the time that little corner piece was cut out, you would have known IMMEDIATELY that cloth was different from the rest. Such a pity you were not there to supervise those stupid scientists.
Yes, when the Pope decided to allow the Shroud of Turin to be examined by scientists, the purpose was to determine if the Shroud of Turin was a fake burial cloth of Jesus. That has yet to be done, because the scientist who did the dating tests were too stupid to ensure the cloth they tested was the actual linen from the Shroud of Turin. It was not discover ...[text shortened]... ent laba that they had been testing cotton fibers dyed to look old like the linen of the Shroud.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Vatican has bigger fish to fry these days (pun intended).
And now the Vatican will not let any more cloth be taken so exactly how are scientists supposed to test it? I assume if it was you there at the time that little corner piece was cut out, you would have known IMMEDIATELY that cloth was different from the rest. Such a pity you were not there to supervise those stupid scientists.
"Bingo after church!"
"All-you-can-eat Fish Fry, Friday Night, 7:00pm"
Watch for the white smoke.
My prediction, an Italian from Rome. Papal name: Peter