1. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    28 Dec '05 01:54
    I am looking forward to reading the replies to this topic.
    I myself am uncertain if it is real or a fake.
    Iam no forensic expert(I do have a degree in law enforcement)
    and I have read reports both saying its a fraud and genuine.
    I think it is a faith issue.I was moved to hear that an atheist scientist
    who had studied and examined the shroud with a very sceptical eye,
    was convinced it was real,he then converted to xian.
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    28 Dec '05 02:10
    Originally posted by aspviper666
    I am looking forward to reading the replies to this topic.
    I myself am uncertain if it is real or a fake.
    Iam no forensic expert(I do have a degree in law enforcement)
    and I have read reports both saying its a fraud and genuine.
    I think it is a faith issue.I was moved to hear that an atheist scientist
    who had studied and examined the shroud with a very sceptical eye,
    was convinced it was real,he then converted to xian.
    Please give the source for this reputed "atheist" scientist, please.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    28 Dec '05 02:10
    Originally posted by aspviper666
    I am looking forward to reading the replies to this topic.
    I myself am uncertain if it is real or a fake.
    Iam no forensic expert(I do have a degree in law enforcement)
    and I have read reports both saying its a fraud and genuine.
    I think it is a faith issue.I was moved to hear that an atheist scientist
    who had studied and examined the shroud with a very sceptical eye,
    was convinced it was real,he then converted to xian.
    Fake. Carbon dated independently by three different labs to the 1300's.
  4. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    28 Dec '05 02:13
    Originally posted by aspviper666
    I am looking forward to reading the replies to this topic.
    I myself am uncertain if it is real or a fake.
    Iam no forensic expert(I do have a degree in law enforcement)
    and I have read reports both saying its a fraud and genuine.
    I think it is a faith issue.I was moved to hear that an atheist scientist
    who had studied and examined the shroud with a very sceptical eye,
    was convinced it was real,he then converted to xian.
    If the shroud turns out to be a genuine relic from the time of the Roman occupation of the Middle East, so what? How is it going to be positively identified as the burial shroud of someone named Jesus, and even if it was, so what? How does a piece of cloth bolster the claim that Jesus rose from the dead? It's presented as a burial shroud, something used to cover the dead.
  5. London
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    110329
    28 Dec '05 02:14
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Fake. Carbon dated independently by three different labs to the 1300's.
    Sources?
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    28 Dec '05 02:35
    Originally posted by Freddie2006
    Sources?
    Goggle "Shroud of Turin"; the results were well publicized a while ago. Try Wikipedia.
  7. London
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    110329
    28 Dec '05 02:42
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Goggle "Shroud of Turin"; the results were well publicized a while ago. Try Wikipedia.
    Thanks...google came up with this, which "proves" that the Shroud is Medieval.

    http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
  8. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    28 Dec '05 02:56
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Please give the source for this reputed "atheist" scientist, please.
    National Geographic Television Special
    They investigated the shroud.
    It seemed that the people they selected were split on the topic.
  9. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    28 Dec '05 04:37
    Originally posted by aspviper666
    he then converted to xian.
    He became telerion? Poor fella.
  10. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    28 Dec '05 05:55
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]he then converted to xian.
    He became telerion? Poor fella.[/b]
    lol
    telerion is a cool guy
    i dont always agree with him ,but he is a good american

    the shroud on the other hand seems to reek of being faked
    i have yet to hear anyone say it is real
  11. Standard memberUmbrageOfSnow
    All Bark, No Bite
    Playing percussion
    Joined
    13 Jul '05
    Moves
    13232
    28 Dec '05 07:292 edits
    From www.skepdic.com:

    In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350. The shroud allegedly was in a fire during the early part of the 16th century and, according to believers in the shroud's authenticity, that is what accounts for the carbon dating of the shroud as being no more than 650 years old. To non-believers, this sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis. According to microchemist Dr. Walter McCrone,

    The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*

    It may interest skeptics to know that many people of faith believe that there is scientific evidence which supports their belief in the shroud's authenticity. ...

    Walter McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (McCrone 1998). He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999). For his work, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.

    Case closed as far as I can see, no point in debate or argument here. But if carbon dating isn't enough for some reason, read the whole article.

    But carbon dating should be enough by itself, it is very accurate
  12. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    28 Dec '05 12:53
    Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
    Case closed as far as I can see, no point in debate or argument here. But if carbon dating isn't enough for some reason, read the whole article.
    The biggest objection to the carbon dating is the hypothesis that the section used for carbon dating came from an area of the Shroud that was rewoven/repaired in the Middle Ages:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin#Chemical_properties_of_the_sample_site

    http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.html
  13. Standard memberKnightWulfe
    Chess Samurai
    Yes
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    66095
    28 Dec '05 13:39
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    The biggest objection to the carbon dating is the hypothesis that the section used for carbon dating came from an area of the Shroud that was rewoven/repaired in the Middle Ages:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin#Chemical_properties_of_the_sample_site

    http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.html
    So you are saying that it is very likely that 3 different labs given three different samples from three different part of the shroud are all from the small parts that MAY have been repaired (because there is no proof that repair was made, since there is arguable evidence that supports it being from that tiume) during the 14th century?

    Do you actually know the probablity of that occuring?
  14. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    28 Dec '05 13:551 edit
    Originally posted by KnightWulfe
    So you are saying that it is very likely that 3 different labs given three different samples from three different part of the shroud are all from the small parts that MAY have been repaired (because there is no proof that repair was made, since there is arguable evidence that supports it [b]being from that tiume) during the 14th century?[/b]
    Read through both the articles I cited - your objection is addressed there. In particular, all three labs received their samples from the same section of the Shroud, and there is evidence to suggest that the section in question was repaired.

    The other evidence for it "being" from that time is also addressed.
  15. Standard memberKnightWulfe
    Chess Samurai
    Yes
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    66095
    28 Dec '05 16:54
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Read through both the articles I cited - your objection is addressed there. In particular, all three labs received their samples from the same section of the Shroud, [b]and there is evidence to suggest that the section in question was repaired.

    The other evidence for it "being" from that time is also addressed.[/b]
    Of course there is evidence....The carbon dating puts it in that timeframe.
    Honestly, I think it is a forgery, but there is no conclusive proof. The only way would be to test a myriad of sections of it to get an accurate measurement from more than just one small point. I must have misread the study.
    If it is authentic from the Roman time period as a burial shroud, One, how does it prove that Jesus was alive - it could be from any burial....

    The other question I have is why is the "image" on the Shroud depicting the standard "english" version of what Christ looked like. Look at the area from where he is supposed to be birthed.... Fair hair and pale skin are not traits of that region, or any region close to that one.
Back to Top