Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Shroud of Turin turn fake DDO Catholics away

MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...
KwLm
Posts: 476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:28:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

I've talked about it extensively. In fact I've done the only 2 debates on it.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:34:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I don't see why it would. Somebody who'd base their Christian faith over a piece of cloth probably wasn't all that sincere a Christian to begin with.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:38:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:34:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I don't see why it would. Somebody who'd base their Christian faith over a piece of cloth probably wasn't all that sincere a Christian to begin with.

It isn't a basis, but for some it can become a starting point.
KwLm
Posts: 476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.
KwLm
Posts: 476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:46:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

which possibly displays the image of said man, there's no actual way to prove it is the man of the book, is there?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:46:17 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

which possibly displays the image of said man, there's no actual way to prove it is the man of the book, is there?

Well considering that we know the man was killed in Jerusalem (Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth) and there was no record of any other person being crucified with a crown of thorns (I'll be glad to take any evidence here). It seems highly highly indicative.

Then again there is no amount of evidence sufficient for those who don't want to believe.
Skeptical1
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 10:10:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:46:17 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

which possibly displays the image of said man, there's no actual way to prove it is the man of the book, is there?

Well considering that we know the man was killed in Jerusalem (Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth) and there was no record of any other person being crucified with a crown of thorns (I'll be glad to take any evidence here). It seems highly highly indicative.

Then again there is no amount of evidence sufficient for those who don't want to believe.

Especially since it's actually been dated to between 1260 and 1390 AD.

If this shroud is proof of Jesus, do the other 40 burial shrouds of Jesus constitute 40 times more proof?

It's also been suggested that there is enough wood from the true cross in existence to rebuild Noah's ark.

Then again, no amount of disproving relics will disuade true believers.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 10:15:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 10:10:38 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:46:17 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

which possibly displays the image of said man, there's no actual way to prove it is the man of the book, is there?

Well considering that we know the man was killed in Jerusalem (Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth) and there was no record of any other person being crucified with a crown of thorns (I'll be glad to take any evidence here). It seems highly highly indicative.

Then again there is no amount of evidence sufficient for those who don't want to believe.

Especially since it's actually been dated to between 1260 and 1390 AD.

Yeah, the problem with the tests is that the variation between the labs fall outside of the allowable Chi square which indicates that the sample was non-homogeneous. this is consistent with a repair being done in this corner which incorporated both newer and older threads.

If this shroud is proof of Jesus, do the other 40 burial shrouds of Jesus constitute 40 times more proof?

Those other shrouds were likely tracings or paintings of the Shroud of Turin once it appeared in Europe. There is very strong evidence of this exact shroud being present in Constantinople pre 1200 (pre sack of the 4th crusade)

It's also been suggested that there is enough wood from the true cross in existence to rebuild Noah's ark.

And that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Then again, no amount of disproving relics will disuade true believers.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 2:41:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
(Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth)
You say what? From whence would come this marble? And in what form is it allegedly found?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 2:58:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:46:17 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

which possibly displays the image of said man, there's no actual way to prove it is the man of the book, is there?

Well considering that we know the man was killed in Jerusalem (Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth) and there was no record of any other person being crucified with a crown of thorns (I'll be glad to take any evidence here). It seems highly highly indicative.

What evidence is there that the cloth was wrapped around a person with a crown of thorns?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 11:45:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

http://www.nydailynews.com...

Or not. But, continue.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Willows
Posts: 2,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 1:47:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

I could take some photos of dried-up pee marks on my toilet seat and make out somehow that they clearly show the image of God.

Next thing you know, I'll have stupid believers knocking on my door forever and a day. I could charge them $100 for a look and I'd be laughing all the way to the bank.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:48:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 2:41:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
(Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth)
You say what? From whence would come this marble? And in what form is it allegedly found?

http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 2:58:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:46:17 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

which possibly displays the image of said man, there's no actual way to prove it is the man of the book, is there?

Well considering that we know the man was killed in Jerusalem (Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth) and there was no record of any other person being crucified with a crown of thorns (I'll be glad to take any evidence here). It seems highly highly indicative.

What evidence is there that the cloth was wrapped around a person with a crown of thorns?

The numerous contusions resulting in blood flows all around the head.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

These would have been formed from something like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 5:08:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 11:45:49 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

http://www.nydailynews.com...

Or not. But, continue.

Lol. The Garlaschelli "shroud". So he says that he recreated the shroud that has 3D effects. These effects are chunky and without detail:

http://www.reuters.com...

Additionally his process used paints to create the image. The image on the shroud is not paint. On the shroud the blood is under the image, his process would destroy the blood so he had to splatter blood on top. And on and on....

So if you call an inferior image that is neither physically nor chemically similar a reproduction, then I suggest you should avoid the sciences (and the arts).
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 5:10:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 1:47:16 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

I could take some photos of dried-up pee marks on my toilet seat and make out somehow that they clearly show the image of God.

And if that is what I was showning I would agree with your statement. However there is no relation between the two.

Next thing you know, I'll have stupid believers knocking on my door forever and a day. I could charge them $100 for a look and I'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

Yay capitalism! Except that nobody would.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 5:12:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 5:00:56 PM, tarantula wrote:
The Shroud of Turin is believed to be fake, I believe.

Based on only one test that did not follow protocols.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 5:48:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

http://www.nydailynews.com...

Or not. But, continue.

Lol. The Garlaschelli "shroud". So he says that he recreated the shroud that has 3D effects. These effects are chunky and without detail:

http://www.reuters.com...

Speaking from a purely aesthetic point of view, the two are similar. I don't know what you mean by "without detail". Also bear in mind, LG is attempting to simulate age, in addition to simulating accuracy. A forger at the time (800-1200 BC) wouldn't had to have done that. What variety of 3D effects the 'original' shroud might have looked like when put through the same steps is unknown, at the time of its creation.

Additionally his process used paints to create the image. The image on the shroud is not paint. On the shroud the blood is under the image, his process would destroy the blood so he had to splatter blood on top. And on and on....

His process used items that are available at the time to make it look like what it is. Paint, mud, yak urine, crushed goose down, it makes no never mind what the 'original' shroud uses, it was stated that replication is impossible, or at the very least unknown, and yet here we are after 2 attempts from a learned individual on the matter.

So if you call an inferior image that is neither physically nor chemically similar a reproduction, then I suggest you should avoid the sciences (and the arts).

I call materials composited 800 years after Christ's death to be inferior, but that is not stopping many other's from their belief.

Now, I am sure it was just a stroke of luck that the exact places where radiometric dating was taken from was the places it was repaired throughout the years, each time.

Right?

I am not terribly certain how you feel the process he used is different or some how drastically different from 8-12th century materials (which is when the Shroud was radiometrically dated too...) to be out of bounds.

"But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth.

Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the Middle Ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect."

So, if you would be so kind as to inform me where you found his process, and why you feel it is inferior, I would be appreciative.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 6:45:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 5:48:26 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Speaking from a purely aesthetic point of view, the two are similar. I don't know what you mean by "without detail".

Just as an example look at the nose. It is broad and flat, whereas the shroud has much more gradation across the face. This becomes even more apparent when you view them in 3D (garlaschelli on the left):

https://shroudstory.files.wordpress.com...

It has no "grayscale". It is on or off because it is a contact made image. The image on the shroud is more akin to a printer where it is about the frequency of similar coloured dots.

Also bear in mind, LG is attempting to simulate age, in addition to simulating accuracy.

For colour yes, but he still cannot do it with the blood underneath.

A forger at the time (800-1200 BC) wouldn't had to have done that. What variety of 3D effects the 'original' shroud might have looked like when put through the same steps is unknown, at the time of its creation.

Nobody knew of any 3D effect until some guys fooling around with a VP8 analyzer (a tool that takes dark and light to make 3d images - used in mapping etc...) put a picture of the shroud under it. Nobody had ever seen anything like it before.

His process used items that are available at the time to make it look like what it is. Paint, mud, yak urine, crushed goose down, it makes no never mind what the 'original' shroud uses, it was stated that replication is impossible, or at the very least unknown, and yet here we are after 2 attempts from a learned individual on the matter.

Yes, here we are. With something that has no been reproduced in the slightest. If anything the fact that he has shown that the materials available at the time when forgery is suspected cannot reproduce the chemical and physical properties is evidence towards authenticity.

So if you call an inferior image that is neither physically nor chemically similar a reproduction, then I suggest you should avoid the sciences (and the arts).

I call materials composited 800 years after Christ's death to be inferior, but that is not stopping many other's from their belief.

I don't care what materials are used. It is only that if you say you can reproduce the Shroud of Turin, you have to be able to reproduce the chemical and physical properties. If you cannot then you have not. Given that he would not give his "shroud" over for others to inspect (you know the scientific process) shows that he knows that what he has created is not a reproduction in any sense of the word.

Now, I am sure it was just a stroke of luck that the exact places where radiometric dating was taken from was the places it was repaired throughout the years, each time.

The samples were taken only from one corner of the shroud (this was against the test procedure). This corner was chosen because it was highly damaged (you know the type place where people might try to make repairs). The UV fluorescence in this corner was different than on the main body of the shroud (something they didn't look at in advance).

Right?

Yup.

I am not terribly certain how you feel the process he used is different or some how drastically different from 8-12th century materials (which is when the Shroud was radiometrically dated too...) to be out of bounds.

If the process he used was able to reproduce the physical and chemical properties with reasonable accuracy I would say that he has shown the shroud to be a forgery. If however you cannot do so then you have not shown the shroud to be a forgery.

If I went to a bar and ordered a prairie fire and the bartender gave me a glass of water with a red jujube on the bottom, I'd tell him that he didn't make a prairie fire. He could argue that it looks the same; a clear liquid with something red on the bottom. Yeah, but it isn't alcohol, that isn't tabasco and it doesn't light on fire.

"But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth.

Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the Middle Ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect."

So, if you would be so kind as to inform me where you found his process, and why you feel it is inferior, I would be appreciative.

The acid needed to be washed off and that is not what the image is. There is no acid trace on the shroud, there is no pigment in the image. There is no way the pigments would have completely disappeared over that period of time and there is no red ochre on the shroud.

The fact that he is unwilling to permit peer review on his shroud is most telling.

Here I found one article that pretty much summarizes all that I'm saying and more:

https://evidencetobelieve.net...

Never mind once we get into the blood evidence, the differences in medieval linen vs 1st century linens, the massive amount of artwork that ties directly to the path of the shroud through history.

It certainly has not been proven a fake or reproduced.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 7:34:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 4:53:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/2/2016 2:58:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:46:17 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

which possibly displays the image of said man, there's no actual way to prove it is the man of the book, is there?

Well considering that we know the man was killed in Jerusalem (Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth) and there was no record of any other person being crucified with a crown of thorns (I'll be glad to take any evidence here). It seems highly highly indicative.

What evidence is there that the cloth was wrapped around a person with a crown of thorns?

The numerous contusions resulting in blood flows all around the head.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

These would have been formed from something like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

That's pure speculation that the blood was caused by a crown of thorns. Blows to the head could caused bleeding. And wouldn't having hair cause the blood to congeel in the hair and not come out it such an obvious crown like pattern? Like the ha d wound, on cloth shouldn't that soak as a more circular or oval pattern and not look like flow lines as shown on the shroud?

And what about the D'Arcis memorandum?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 8:16:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 7:34:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:53:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/2/2016 2:58:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:51:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:46:17 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:39:39 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:32:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:24:50 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

All that shroud proves is that it was wrapped around a body, get off the internet and go outside with the other kids

lol. You obviously don't know much at all about it.

Won't deny it, can't deny it, but what's there to know, it's a piece of cloth that was wrapped around a body no?

It is a piece of cloth whose image cannot be replicated by any known physical or chemical means; which displays the image of a man who claimed to be God and which perfectly correlates with the texts describing his death.

which possibly displays the image of said man, there's no actual way to prove it is the man of the book, is there?

Well considering that we know the man was killed in Jerusalem (Jerusalem marble transferred from the heel onto to the cloth) and there was no record of any other person being crucified with a crown of thorns (I'll be glad to take any evidence here). It seems highly highly indicative.

What evidence is there that the cloth was wrapped around a person with a crown of thorns?

The numerous contusions resulting in blood flows all around the head.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

These would have been formed from something like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

That's pure speculation that the blood was caused by a crown of thorns.

To some degree, but consistent with the wounds.

Blows to the head could caused bleeding. And wouldn't having hair cause the blood to congeel in the hair and not come out it such an obvious crown like pattern?

Well if the hair is pushed flat that is where it would flow; from the wound down the hair. Bilirubin (which is released in the bloodstream when someone is tortured) in the blood impedes coagulation (and also gives the blood its still somewhat vibrant red colour on the shroud).

Like the ha d wound, on cloth shouldn't that soak as a more circular or oval pattern and not look like flow lines as shown on the shroud?

The blood was partially dried in the hair as it had flowed. This was transferred to the cloth when the body was laid on the shroud.

And what about the D'Arcis memorandum?

The letter of Bishop Pierre D'Arcis' letter was never dated nor signed. And it is also interesting to note that the presence of the shroud in Lirey was drawing pilgrims away from Poitiers (where Bishop Pierre D'Arcis had jurisdiction). Pilgrims meant funds and while bishops are not supposed to let worldly affairs govern, it is expensive to run a church.

The letter describes an unknown artist and refutation by his predecessor (none of which was ever documented). Additionally the style of writing is not that of a bishop, but rather a rough draft (perhaps even written up by someone in the Chancery) that was never sent. Given that the Pope provided indulgences to those who venerated the shroud a short time later shows that the Pope either never received the letter or did not find it of sufficient evidence.

https://www.shroud.com...
Willows
Posts: 2,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 7:06:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 5:10:53 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/2/2016 1:47:16 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

I could take some photos of dried-up pee marks on my toilet seat and make out somehow that they clearly show the image of God.

And if that is what I was showning I would agree with your statement. However there is no relation between the two.

Yet the two examples are as ridiculous as each other
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 8:39:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 7:06:27 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:10:53 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/2/2016 1:47:16 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

I could take some photos of dried-up pee marks on my toilet seat and make out somehow that they clearly show the image of God.

And if that is what I was showning I would agree with your statement. However there is no relation between the two.

Yet the two examples are as ridiculous as each other

If you think bare assertions are a valid argument, then good for you.
Willows
Posts: 2,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 10:06:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:39:39 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/3/2016 7:06:27 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:10:53 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/2/2016 1:47:16 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

I could take some photos of dried-up pee marks on my toilet seat and make out somehow that they clearly show the image of God.

And if that is what I was showning I would agree with your statement. However there is no relation between the two.

Yet the two examples are as ridiculous as each other

If you think bare assertions are a valid argument, then good for you.

Do you seriously think that the Shroud of Turin is anything more than what it is....a piece of old cloth.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 1:19:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 10:06:47 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:39:39 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/3/2016 7:06:27 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:10:53 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/2/2016 1:47:16 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:05:37 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
It's because they were never Catholics to begin with. They only pretend to be Catholics, which is why they never talk about this. Proof for God? It's definitely some hard evidence burned into the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com...

I could take some photos of dried-up pee marks on my toilet seat and make out somehow that they clearly show the image of God.

And if that is what I was showning I would agree with your statement. However there is no relation between the two.

Yet the two examples are as ridiculous as each other

If you think bare assertions are a valid argument, then good for you.

Do you seriously think that the Shroud of Turin is anything more than what it is....a piece of old cloth.

I believe that it is a roughly 2000 year old cloth with evidence detailing the death of Jesus.