How is it possible to pass scientific scrutiny - even in principle? It is not possible for a material to indicate the identity of a person, unless we have DNA samples. It's not possible for a material to indicate that it was involved in a resurrection. The best it can do is be plausible.
This video is a joke. Skip to 4:45. "We're going to build a DNA profile based on the physical descriptions of Jesus..." "On each physical description we will make a white line on the DNA fingerprint that you see..." Look: a sample of DNA with genes marked on it! There's a gene for crown of thorns! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's right folks: - the bearer of the Shroud does not carry a gene for a crown of thorns. - Jesus also doesn't carry a gene for a crown of thorns. - therefore Jesus was the shroud bearer. I wonder, are there people out there whose DNA carries the gene for a crown of thorns? Is it a dominant trait. Are their children born with a crown of thorns? Isn't that tough on the mother? Gosh, this DNA stuff is hard. That's why we leave it to our priests.
What sides? No, it didn't. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...er-study-carbon-dating-debunked-a8450101.html BTW Nobody's been charged with anything.
Makes me wonder where people get these ideas. It's like the creationist claim that scientists are rejecting evolution in droves. Don't you guys look at the other side at all?
Yeah, just so long as you don't garble the words of the incantation, or sacrifice a blemished bullock, or get a haircut.
Yes, must strictly adhere to the prescribed rituals. It is the only way one can communicate with the supernatural. A little blood is often required......gods like blood.
Agreed. But that would seem to describe research on the shroud very well. The vast majority of the researchers who worked on it were believers, who had a strong incentive to find it to be "authentic" - and were assured of fame and fortune from other believers as long as they came to the preordained conclusion.
I agree, excellent point, I thought the very same thing. I just take it as a graphic representation only. Thanks!
I really don’t think this description matches or treats fairly the scientists who actually worked on the Shroud at all. Certainly you would not suggest that the scientists who worked on the carbon dating were like this, would you. Some of them were very reluctant to even be on the team. Would you like me to put a list together for you?
The sacrifices in the Old Testament were only a Shadow or prophesy concerning Jesus Christ. A symbol for the sacrifice He would make for us in the future on the cross. You know that!
Thanks for the article! I appreciate it. The carbon dating is obviously wrong for a number of reasons. Not the method, the sample that was taken was on the edge, and was a repair made up of linen and cotton. And there are references to the Shroud that were written far earlier than the carbon date would allow for. I will look up the name of the scientist on the original team who agreed that the carbon dating had to be off because of the more recent repair sample that was used for the tests. He was not a Christian. His name was Ray Rogers, there is video of him.
Investigators for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) include: Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation* - Infrared spectroscopy Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* - Infrared spectral measurements John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* - Technical support for all experiments Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography* - Scientific photography Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography* - Microphotography, photomicroscopy Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography* - Scientific photography (Deceased) Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office -Medical, forensics (Deceased) Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.* - Scientific photography, image analysis (Deceased) Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado* - Technical support of all experiments Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Chemistry, tape sample removal/analysis (Deceased) Donald Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Image analysis Joan Janney Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Technical support J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - X-ray radiography and X-ray fluorescence (Deceased) Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - X-ray fluorescence (Deceased) Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Chemistry, tape sample removal/analysis (Deceased) Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories - Physics, X-ray fluorescesnce Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories - Chemistry, Archaeology (Deceased) Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM* - Public relations Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University - Biochemist, tape sample analysis (Deceased) Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation* - Logistics Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum - Conservation Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center - Medical analysis (Deceased) Roger Gilbert, Oriel Corporation* - Visible/UV spectroscopy Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation* - Visible/UV spectroscopy Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph* - Thermography John Heller, New England Institute - Biophysics (Deceased) John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy* - STURP President, measurements/analysis Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy* - STURP Vice-president, measurements/analysis Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory* - Image analysis (Deceased) Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory* - Image analysis (Deceased) Robert William (Bill) Mottern, Sandia National Laboratory* - Image analysis, X-ray radiography (Deceased) Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center* - Visible/UV spectroscopy Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios* - Documentation Photography Note: The researchers marked with an * participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.
naming places doesn't make scientific fact philosophy deals with ideas, not land marks land marks are materialist symbology of perception. note loosing the shoe in the life of Brian finding a shoe or a mountain does not validate OR invalidate philosophy
As I said, Gods like blood and blood sacrifice. Eating the "flesh" and drinking the "blood" is paying homage to Divinity? Sounds a little primitive to me.
How is it helpful to list all the laboratories that wasted time on this one bogus relic? It was known to be a fake back in the 14th century.
I didn't say that all scientists agreed. I said "vast majority." The scientists to whom faith was more important have found ways to "adjust" their discoveries. Look, if believing in the Shroud of Turin is central to your religious faith, then believe away. It's like some people's belief in the Earth being 6000 years old, or that Adam and Eve were the first people, or that climate change isn't happening. I have long since learned the futility in discussing something that is essential to someone's core beliefs. Your need to believe will trump anything that has to do with science, every time.
