What do you think of the Shroud of Turin? The real thing or a big hoax? Here is a picture:

http://www.shroud.com/

I just recently saw a documentary on this subject:)
The aim of the documentary was to findout if they could explain it.
They had alot of trouble at first.
But eventually they managed to figure out an age and they realised it was from the renaissance at the earliest.
It was made by an extremely talented artist.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
It was made by an extremely talented artist.

Yes...

SO talented he 'encoded' 3-dimensional data in the cloth, as well..

(/sarcasm)

;)

Originally posted by Joshua's Generation
SO talented he 'encoded' 3-dimensional data in the cloth, as well..Actually the three dimensional aspect is automatic when doing a bas-releif rubbing. A technique that was not uncommon at the time.

~Raithere

Dude seriously, I wish I could give you this documentary, its been totally debunked, the mystery is over, we KNOW it is a hoax, this doesn't mean you can't be a christian, go ahead, just don't claim the shroud is anymore than it is.

lol - I love those stories in some of the UK newspapers where "images of Jesus have been found in a lemon" or "an image of the Virgin Mary has been found in a shadow between an old ladder and a fence".

Of all the patterns--of all the shadows--or all the markings, and of all the billions upon billions of natural images in the world, some are bound to have a striking resemblance to those of of religeous images. And it would take the commercial power of a religeous image to warrant the media hype to let the public know about it.

If the billions of people of the world spent their time looking for images 'somewhere' of Sylvester Stallone or George Bush, they WOULD find them.

Originally posted by Joshua's Generation
Yes...

SO talented he 'encoded' 3-dimensional data in the cloth, as well..

(/sarcasm)

;)

I hate this stuff.....Let's assume this shroud was indeed the peace of cloth that Jesus body was wrapped in during crucifiction. What is the importance of that.....Are Christians now going to become more pagans and start worshipping a peace of cloth in the hope that it touched Jesus body. And I though the christians say that Jesus is always alive and is "god forbid" god himself. Is god that poor that the only thing he can leave in his memory is an old rag??????

lol - I love those stories in some of the UK newspapers where "images of Jesus have been found in a lemon" or "an image of the Virgin Mary has been found in a shadow between an old ladder and a fence".

Did you see the one in the Sun newspaper with a picture of E.T in a tree stump? Quite cool! E.T was here, he really did phone home and bugger off back to space!! :D

Yes the shroud of turin is a hoax and it bears validity to a lot of my points on this forum, (especially science vs religion)...

Religion finds something that looks good. It is instantly attributed to being jesus on cloth and hung up as a holy item. Nobody analysed, questioned or studied it. They just said "it is this" and put it on the wall.

Science studies to find the facts.

I saw a show a long time ago and the scientists were saying that the face would be twice the size than the normal sized face because the cloth would have to cover both sides of the face instead of directly perfect image.

Even Jesus has his own designer label now!

Why is he wearing a watch (left wrist)?? :D
'encoded' 3-dimensional data in the cloth What is this??

Why is he wearing a watch (left wrist)??
Hahaha:D I think it's the "nail"

Special thanks goes out to carbon-14 for helping us figure out the date of things like this.

I too saw a documentary that pretty much confirmed that the shroud is a hoax. The authors claimed that Leonardo da Vinci is the prime suspect.

Originally posted by Charles Fleming
'encoded' 3-dimensional data in the cloth

What is this?? [/B]


The second odd property of the Shroud is the three-dimensional information allegedly embedded in its image.22 There is indeed some three-dimensional information contained in the image, but it is very crude, requiring much fudging and a number of blatant, scientifically-impermissible "corrections" to produce anything resembling a human face and body.23 Today, however, computer-generated 3-D images and videos, and three-dimensional models of the Man on the Shroud's body and face, are widely available; both have been used to illustrate depictions of the Shroud's formation in non-skeptical, pro-authenticity television programs. The outrageous statements, then and now, that such 3-D information is the result of a paranormal or miraculous burst of radiation or flow of vapors from the body--and was capable of "regenerating faith in a skeptical age"--are so contrary to scientific knowledge and common sense that their origin can only be ascribed to a religiously-inspired zealotry that separates a person from his or her analytical abilities.

Both the apparent "photographic negative" and crude "embedded 3-D information" properties of the Shroud of Turin can easily be explained by simply understanding how the artist created it. Although a direct painting on linen using red ochre pigment in a tempera binder17 cannot be absolutely ruled out as an hypothesis for the Shroud's creation, it is much more likely that the Shroud was constructed using a rubbing technique on a bas-relief model.18 Joe Nickell was the first person to suggest this method of producing the Shroud. He observed that contact imprints from bodies are invariably grossly distorted, and hypotheses involving a vapor or radiation would cause the image to penetrate the cloth, unlike the superficial Shroud image that is observed. After experimenting with various techniques, the Shroud artist prepared a suitable mixture of pigments and tempera binder, molded a wet linen sheet over the bas-relief he had constructed, and used a dauber (also termed a pounce or tamper) to apply the mixture to the surface of the linen.


The bas-relief rubbing method automatically produces not only an apparent negative image (that is, one without true photographic quality), but also an image with crude three-dimensional properties. Unlike a photographic negative, in which light and dark are reversed, a bas-relief rubbing produces a negative in which topographically high areas become dark and low areas become light. This is because the topographically higher areas receive more of the pigment and lower areas receive less. This is precisely what we observe on the Shroud: the nose, mustache, beard, hair, brow ridge, and cheek bones on the bas-relief were raised relative to the sunken eyes, the space between the hair and face, and the area below the nose and mustache, so the former areas are darker on the Shroud image and the latter areas lighter. A genuine photographic negative of the Shroud's faux-photographic negative image--that is, a faux-positive--looks appealingly natural and life-like, if one ignores the white blood and hair. Furthermore, as the pigment is applied, there is a gradation of pigment and binder density from topographically higher to lower areas, producing the tonal variation that creates a crude three-dimensional quality. - http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html

~Raithere

I believe it may be a hoax, but more likely it is just a piece of cloth with a primative imaging technique created for the fun of it.

It was not necessarily created to fake people out. It looks to me like it was something fun for Leonardo (or someone else) to do. Doesn't a "Hoax" have to be something purposly designed to trick naive people? People believe all kinds of silly things that were never Hoaxes? Remember the so-called "face" on Mars?

When was it first claimed to be of Jesus? I think it was many years after it was created.

Remember the so-called "face" on Mars?

What's that supposed to mean? Using the term 'remember' is as if to imply it's an old solved mystery. It isn't. The only problem concerning the face is the fact we can't see the other side due to shadow. NASA refused to land anywhere near Cydonia for their own reasons and as such the whole 'face' issue remains unanswered. Currently there's nothing to suggest it's natural. Ok there's not a lot to suggest it isn't natural aside from mathematical variants but unless NASA decide to land in Cydonia we'll never know.

And how would it be 'silly'? What's silly about a big alien face smiling to any planets in the vicinity? Or maybe Jesus put it there on his way to meet his father? :D

Originally posted by Qaz
I believe it may be a hoax, but more likely it is just a piece of cloth with a primative imaging technique created for the fun of it.It seems to have been deliberately made to represent the death shroud of Jesus. Whether it was initially created to fool people or be an artistic representation it seems that it was deliberately displayed for this purpose as it was initially discredited in the 14th century: " Unlike many shrouds of Jesus known from the Middle Ages, the Shroud of Turin was pronounced by a contemporary fourteenth-century Catholic bishop in France to be a fake, since his predecessor as Bishop of Troyes, "after diligent inquiry and examination, discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."" - http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/schafersman.html


Originally posted by SnakeLord
What's that supposed to mean? Using the term 'remember' is as if to imply it's an old solved mystery. It isn't. The only problem concerning the face is the fact we can't see the other side due to shadow. NASA refused to land anywhere near Cydonia for their own reasons and as such the whole 'face' issue remains unanswered. Currently there's nothing to suggest it's natural. Ok there's not a lot to suggest it isn't natural aside from mathematical variants but unless NASA decide to land in Cydonia we'll never know. Quite wrong:

The Mars Global Surveyor re-photographed the "face" on April 6th, 1998:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/

And again on July 24, 2002:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA04100
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA04100_modest.jpg

It is, quite obviously, a simply a geographic feature that only looked like a face from a particular vantage due to shadows formed at a particular time of day.

~Raithere

Quite wrong:

Umm not quite wrong. NASA didn't land anywhere near Cydonia and refuse to do so. And those pictures show nothing and prove nothing. Land on Cydonia then you have proof- which is what i said.

I have been an amateur photographer for years- and it's often the case where pictures look nothing like how they would if you were up close. It could very well be a pile of rocks or it could very well be something else- at least get good pictures then come talk to me. Again i state: Land on Cydonia then you have the facts.

Before you keep posting: 'quite wrong' to everything i say why not read the fucking post first? What was it you said to me about assumption?

You're starting to sound like a Christian. Where we can't just accept anything at truth instant dismissal is just as bad. For the third time: Land on Cydonia- problem solved. They have the ability to get up close and personal- if it answers a question i'd believe it to be fundamental.


New: that only looked like it wasn't a face from a particular vantage due to shadows formed at a particular time of day.

~Raithere

Another link on the shroud fraud.

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Umm not quite wrong. NASA didn't land anywhere near Cydonia and refuse to do so. And those pictures show nothing and prove nothing. Land on Cydonia then you have proof- which is what i said.My apologies for not being more specific. By "quite wrong" I was referring to your comment "the whole 'face' issue remains unanswered". NASA already had an answer (based upon various measurements and calculations) to the 'mysterious face' but was still willing to specifically task a vehicle to take more photographs of the formation in order to satisfy those who continued to question.

The answer, to me, is quite apparent; looking at the other pictures one can easily see how light from a particular direction will cause shadows that look like a face. One of the newer pictures still looks like a face, although more like a gorilla's face than that of Jesus. However, the reverse does not appear to be true; that this is really a 'face' that somehow looks like natural and rather typical geologic formations from another perspective.

Of course, some people will never be satisfied with any explanation but their own; even if we land there to take more pictures and measurements someone will come up with the proposition that aliens or God purposefully developed a natural feature in order to look like a face to us from a particular perspective. They do it all the time with pictures of clouds and billowing smoke even though there is nothing about these occurrences that is unnatural. To belief, such as that, there is simply no rational response. One may posit that God deliberately placed the fossil evidence of evolution to test our faith as well.

~Raithere

Well don't get me wrong it is way more than likely to be nothing more than a hump of martian rock. Whatever people look at they find faces- usually very symmetrical. It's an inbuilt function i guess. However the mathematical analysis of the one side was a strong argument. NASA takes a photo from a distance so far away it hardly answers the question for certain. I'm just the kind of guy who needs a positive answer instead of a probable. When they launched the mars lander they declined from having it land any where near Cydonia which would have cleared up the issue once and for all. I'd rather they just did that instead of taking pictures from space.

The argument has pretty much always been that if shown to be symmetrical it would show design instead of natural occurence. I guess that's still not an answer but it's closer to one.

Special thanks goes out to carbon-14 for helping us figure out the date of things like this. If carbon-14 dating actually works!!

Originally posted by Charles Fleming
If carbon-14 dating actually works!!Why would you suggest that it doesn't?

~Raithere

Why would you suggest that it doesn't? Because there is evidence to the contrary. You might laugh at first but listen to it all all the way through, try: The missing link is still missing (part2) (http://resources.christianity.com/mooreonlife/seriesInfo.jhtml?id=1275&JServSessionIdroot=cfddrlx4s1)

I'm not seeing anything to read at that link. It's just for ordering or downloading the sermon. Can you provide a different URL?

I believe the shroud probably is a hoax, but does it even matter? What would it prove? Jesus of Nazareth most likely did exist, but that doesn’t prove Mary was a virgin and he was the son of a god.

-N-

I'm not seeing anything to read at that link. It's just for ordering or downloading the sermon. Can you provide a different URL? Click on play! (http://resources.christianity.com/ministries/mooreonlife/main/talkInfo.jhtml?id=25681&JServSessionIdroot=cfddrlx4s1)

Even if it takes time to listen to, there is some very valuable information on there.

Carbon dating gets thrown off wildly by water (16:44)! If there was a great flood covering everything, as many people believe, then carbon dating will not be accurate at all!

Please explain for us how carbon-14 dating could be thrown off by water. The presence of water would not affect the rate at which carbon-14 decays, so I'm really curious to hear your explanation for it.

Please just go and learn about the shroud and how it got debunked yourself, you'll be surprised how clear and concise it is. You won't be asking any questions at the end.

The presence of water would not affect the rate at which carbon-14 decays, so I'm really curious to hear your explanation for it. Listen to the audio! it is all explained! (16:44)

All living things absorb Carbon-14 but when something that was living dies, it stops taking it in, so the amount of carbon-14 present in something (providing it was once living) can show how old it is. The more carbon-14 that is present then the younger it is and the less carbon-14 that is present, the older it is.

According to Science (Volume 130), living molluscs were dated by carbon-14 dating as two thousand three hundred years old!

According to Nature Magazine (Volume 22, March 1970), organic material from a castle mortar that holds the rocks together was dated. They knew that the castle was seven hundred and eighty seven years old but carbon dating estimated that it was seven thousand three hundred and seventy years old.

According to the Antartic journal of the United States(Volume 6, 1971), freshly killed seals were dated by carbon-14 to be thirteen hundred years old. Mumified seals that had been dead for thirty years (they knew when they had died) were dated at four thousand six hundred years old.

It seems that water messes up carbon-14 dating. Listen to the audio clips!

Sorry, but I'm not going to listen to the audio clips; I'm sure you can offer an explanation based on what you've heard, so please do so. Just paraphrase the explanation from the online lecture (or whatever it was) for us, please.

As to your examples of C14 dating being mistaken, I am afraid that they are not very convincing. It is well known that C14 dating cannot be used to date certain organisms (especially certain types of mollusks and creatures that eat mollusks) and the reasons for it are well understood. C14 dating basically only works for things that get their carbon from the air; it's not always accurate for sea creatures, which are often dated as being older than they actually are. It also can't be used on things that are less then around 60 years old, so your example of the living seals being dated incorrectly isn't surprising. It is accurate for the vast majority of once-living things that are less the 50,000 years old. C14 dating is generally only used to date biological samples, so it's entirely inappropriate to use it on castle mortar. I'm not surprised that it gave an incorrect date on that.

Also, it's important to note that in all of the cases you cited the C14 dating incorrectly dated things as being older than they actually were; I'd like to hear an explanation for how flawed carbon dating could date the shroud as being younger than it actually is.

Arguments in the audio:

Cosmic Dust - Should be 50 feet in 4 billion years:
This figure is based upon outdated and erroneous information that has been obsolete for about 25 years. This 25 year old estimate was 39,150 tons/day (which even the author admitted could be much lower). Newer figures show that the rate is 60 - 120 tons per day.

ref: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

Magnetic field decay:
Evidence shows that the magnetic field fluctuates rather than simply decays. That is, it grows weaker at times and stronger at others. This is like noting that the temperature is decreasing from July to December and then predicting that it will be twice as cold in June.

ref: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html

Sun getting smaller .1% per century, 5' per hour:
This one has been outdated for 60 years. Prior to discovering fusion there was a hypothesis that the Sun produced energy from gravitational collapse. We now know better. There was also an abstract (not a full fledged paper) written by Eddy and Boornazian that suggested that the Sun was indeed shrinking. Serious flaws were discovered in their methodology and it was discredited. The short of it is; the Sun is not shrinking... so there's nothing to explain.

Radiometric dating - accuracy

Different dating techniques usually give conflicting results.
This is not true at all. The fact that dating techniques most often agree with each other is why scientists tend to trust them in the first place. Nearly every college and university library in the country has periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals that give the results of dating studies. The public is usually welcome to (and should!) browse in these libraries. So the results are not hidden; people can go look at the results for themselves. Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement. Besides the scientific periodicals that carry up-to-date research reports, specific suggestions are given below for further reading, both for textbooks, non-classroom books, and web resources. - Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
Carbon-14 dating messed up by water:
While water can affect the ability to date rock surfaces or other weathered areas, there is generally no trouble dating interior portions of most rocks from the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans. Additionally, if ages were disturbed by leaching, the leaching would affect different isotopes at vastly different rates. Ages determined by different methods would be in violent disagreement. If the flood were global in scope, why then would we have any rocks for which a number of different methods all agree with each other? In fact, close agreement between methods for most samples is a hallmark of radiometric dating. - Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
Here's the site for both quotes. It's quite excellent, including charts and references that are not 30 - 60 years out of date and in a level of detail entirely lacking in any of the opposing arguments:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html


Geochronology, 80 tests, 5 to 1 against an old Earth:
Seeing as his top 5 are so easily shown to be quite false and noting what seems to be deliberately contrived misinformation and misleading presentation (or at least his unwitting collusion in such), I believe the accuracy of this statement can be summarily dismissed.

The speaker has not demonstrated a single factually supportable argument. This is because there is no such evidence. It is quite likely that he realizes this, which is why he doesn't even bother to attempt to provide it in his speech; relying instead upon innuendo, suggestion, hearsay, and a couple of out of date snippets of text.

Frankly, I thought the entire thing was crap; I found it to be a deliberate and desperate attempt to get people to believe in the fallacy of the Young Earth interpretation of Biblical creation: A fantasy that is in direct contradiction with all relevant facts.

~Raithere

While water can affect the ability to date rock surfaces or other weathered areas, there is generally no trouble dating interior portions of most rocks from the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans.C14 isn't used to date rocks anyway.

Originally posted by Nasor
C14 isn't used to date rocks anyway. Good point... maybe I need to re-read this page again. It was really late when I read it before.

~Raithere

P.S. Nope... my bad. He was not talking about C14.