Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Can you tell us the "rust of the story"?
Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image
- Thread starter MRC_Hans
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Can you tell us the "rust of the story"?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Gag me with a struggling draft horse, Uncle Dave...I totally missed that. Rilly.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Despite all expectations to the contrary, this has once again become an educational thread.
Jabba, would you like to contribute something of educational value?
Jabba, would you like to contribute something of educational value?
PizzaTheHutt
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2013
- Messages
- 61
Jabba:
Modern scientists have not been able to reproduce the invisible/near-invisible patch.
Since you have claimed many times here that the inability of modern scientists to reproduce the image on the shroud is indicative that it was not produced by an artist, is it similarly fair to conclude that no seamstress was capable of creating an invisible/near-invisible patch considering that no modern scientists have been able to reproduce such an invisible/near-invisible patch?
If you, in fact, do believe that such an invisible/near-invisible patch has been reproduced by modern scientists (or anybody for that matter), could you perhaps post some photos of these patches? Thank you in advance.
Modern scientists have not been able to reproduce the invisible/near-invisible patch.
Since you have claimed many times here that the inability of modern scientists to reproduce the image on the shroud is indicative that it was not produced by an artist, is it similarly fair to conclude that no seamstress was capable of creating an invisible/near-invisible patch considering that no modern scientists have been able to reproduce such an invisible/near-invisible patch?
If you, in fact, do believe that such an invisible/near-invisible patch has been reproduced by modern scientists (or anybody for that matter), could you perhaps post some photos of these patches? Thank you in advance.
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,964
The patch nonsense has been discussed extensively in a previous iteration of this thread and it was found there is absolutely no evidence suggesting a patch was tested. The sample was representative of the cloth. Next.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Hey Jabba,
Why don't you think of some new argument supporting the authenticity of the CIQ?
You have utterly failed in all previous attempts.
Why don't you think of some new argument supporting the authenticity of the CIQ?
You have utterly failed in all previous attempts.
I'm currently stage manager for a local am-dram troupe who are laying on a couple of one act comedies. In one, a husband is explaining to his hectoring wife why the bathroom door sticks.....
- It's the heat, the door expands and it sticks
- I thought you said it was the cold ?
- It is, in the cold the frame shrinks and the door sticks
Sound like Jabba is applying a similar type of argument.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Mojo,
- I do have some undetectable near-invisible patches.
- However, I cannot remember where I left them.
- It will probably take me some time to find them.
- I'll be back.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
:golf clap:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Oh! Another quotable quote.
Jabba has been back four hours or so after this, by the way. No post though.
Last edited:
But, but I don't understand!
Are you sure? Today is Sunday. Doesn't Jabba suffer from bleeding palms on the Sabbath?
Are you sure? Today is Sunday. Doesn't Jabba suffer from bleeding palms on the Sabbath?
SezMe
post-pre-born
Not really. The holes in his palms are invisible so the blooding gushing forth is too. The uncertainty is enhanced by the presences absence invisible iron oxide.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Any rejoinder, Mr Savage?
Belz...
Fiend God
Those are weasel words. If it's near invisible, then it's visible, and once more you have NO REASON to believe that there was a patch of ANY visibility.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I already went there back up thread. No response from Jabba. But then, one cannot know from moment to moment who might be the blessed opponent.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Mmm, I've been thinking of how this is going. What we have is a group of people, here almost solely represented by Jabba, who want the Shroud of Turin to be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus Christ.
So what goes wrong? What goes wrong is that they want science to support the notion. Science cannot do that, because science is based on evidence, not belief. But, why should they need the support of science? Science cannot support the existence of Jesus Christ, or even God.
Religion works in the realm of the supernatural and must per definition elude science.
So, dear Jabba, your basic mistake is where you claim that the shroud needs not be supernatural. This is wrong: The shroud is supernatural per definition. - It is supposed to be the burial shroud of the son of God who was magically resurrected from death, so how could it be anything but supernatural?
So now you need only to find supernatural explanations that explain the observable facts, and that is rather easy. After all, in the world of the supernatural, practically anything can happen.
For instance, I have seen the hypothesis that the resurrection released a wave of neutron radiation which created a surplus of C14 isotopes in the shroud. This could explain the young C14 dating.
I have another suggestion: When that church, back in the 14th century wanted the relic to beat all relics, they prayed for it, and God sent an angel who went back to AD33, picked up the shroud and whisked it through time to AD1350 (-ish). This would not only explain the C14 dating, but also the lack of historical accounts previous to that time.
Jabba, you may have your own ideas, which could allow you to keep your faith while saving you the no doubt considerable frustration of meddling with the science that you obviously don't really understand.
Best regards, Hans
So what goes wrong? What goes wrong is that they want science to support the notion. Science cannot do that, because science is based on evidence, not belief. But, why should they need the support of science? Science cannot support the existence of Jesus Christ, or even God.
Religion works in the realm of the supernatural and must per definition elude science.
So, dear Jabba, your basic mistake is where you claim that the shroud needs not be supernatural. This is wrong: The shroud is supernatural per definition. - It is supposed to be the burial shroud of the son of God who was magically resurrected from death, so how could it be anything but supernatural?
So now you need only to find supernatural explanations that explain the observable facts, and that is rather easy. After all, in the world of the supernatural, practically anything can happen.
For instance, I have seen the hypothesis that the resurrection released a wave of neutron radiation which created a surplus of C14 isotopes in the shroud. This could explain the young C14 dating.
I have another suggestion: When that church, back in the 14th century wanted the relic to beat all relics, they prayed for it, and God sent an angel who went back to AD33, picked up the shroud and whisked it through time to AD1350 (-ish). This would not only explain the C14 dating, but also the lack of historical accounts previous to that time.
Jabba, you may have your own ideas, which could allow you to keep your faith while saving you the no doubt considerable frustration of meddling with the science that you obviously don't really understand.
Best regards, Hans
Last edited:
- Status