The Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by stellspalfie
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence, could you clarify for me, thanks.

The shroud is the only cloth, when a photo is taken, produces an image on a negative.

Meaning, if you take a photo of any other cloth, no image will appear on the photo negative.

This is why the shroud stands out.

Originally posted by chaney3
The shroud is the only cloth, when a photo is taken, produces an image on a negative.

Meaning, if you take a photo of any other cloth, no image will appear on the photo negative.

This is why the shroud stands out.

I can assure you that whatever cloth you photograph in the whole wide world, an image will appear on the negative. That's how cameras work. I think what you are trying to say is that the image on the cloth, is a negative. It is hardly the only cloth ever to have a negative image printed on it.
Here:
http://www.zazzle.com/fern_tree_with_flowers_negative_t_shirt-235695902601370429
Buy yourself a T-shirt.

Then go get an education.

Even better T-shirt:
http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+shroud-of-turin+t-shirts

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even better T-shirt:
http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+shroud-of-turin+t-shirts

You are wrong.
Your atheism cannot disprove fact.
No image can be produced on a cloth from a negative.

Originally posted by chaney3
You are wrong.
Your atheism cannot disprove fact.
No image can be produced on a cloth from a negative.

You need to seek help.

Originally posted by chaney3
You are wrong.
Your atheism cannot disprove fact.
No image can be produced on a cloth from a negative.

🙄

Originally posted by chaney3
The shroud is the only cloth, when a photo is taken, produces an image on a negative.

Meaning, if you take a photo of any other cloth, no image will appear on the photo negative.

This is why the shroud stands out.

Sorry I don't intend to be rude..but...as twhitehead has stated all things produce an image on a negative, its how photo's on film work.

If I took a white cloth and drew a picture of a dog on it in a different colour then took a photo, the picture of the dog would appear on the negative rather than the negative being all black or all white.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You need to seek help.

You have no proof otherwise, or we would know about it.

You are an atheist. Keep your opinion to yourself. You have no proof regarding the shroud.

Originally posted by chaney3
You have no proof otherwise, or we would know about it.

You are an atheist. Keep your opinion to yourself. You have no proof regarding the shroud.

Or, conversely...

You have no proof, just wild and quite mad conjecture. You are a very silly theist, keep your opinions to yourself, you have no proof etc. etc.

Incidentally, are you drunk?

Today's science cannot duplicate the shroud.

All you atheists, you are wrong.

Originally posted by chaney3
Today's science cannot duplicate the shroud.

All you atheists, you are wrong.

Of course it can. What property do you imagine it has that can't be duplicated?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Of course it can. What property do you imagine it has that can't be duplicated?

After all, it was created around the year 700 if I am not mistaken. The scientists who sampled the shroud when it was available to scientists took as a sample a repaired section which clocked in around 1400 or so but that was a big mistake taking a repair job. They shoud have had the sense to have seen it was a repair which reason would have suggested it came from a later date. Idiots just didn't think, just clip off a piece first place they looked, or maybe they KNEW it would date later in a misguided and biased effort to prove the date way later than JC. At any rate they did not get a sample of the original cloth.

Originally posted by chaney3
A photo of a cloth should not produce an image on a film negative.

This cannot be produced today, despite some posters implying it can.

They are wrong!!

Of course could.

Originally posted by chaney3
Today's science cannot duplicate the shroud.

All you atheists, you are wrong.

You're being silly.

Besides I'm not an atheist.

Originally posted by chaney3
You have no proof otherwise, or we would know about it.

I provided proof. T-shirts.

You are an atheist. Keep your opinion to yourself. You have no proof regarding the shroud.
I have proof that what you are saying is hogwash. Why should I keep that opinion to myself?