>Again, I feel that's a compromise - and not a compromise many are willing to >make.
Oh I would disagree with that...I would expect the vast majority of educated people have no problems with this, nor do they really consider it a compromise. First, there is considerable debate about whether translations of the original Hebrew really do mean "days" in the Creation story or just some unknown passage of time. Nor does a belief in the scientific explanation of evolution mean that you cannot believe that God guided that process. In fact, Genesis even supports this as the chronology of creation exactly mirrors what science now tells us was indeed the correct order of events. Science again supports religion here, as the Big Bang Theory itself tells us that the universe started at some specific moment of time. That would support the idea of a Creator as something still has to bring it into existence at that time. Are you familiar with St. Augustine? He lived around AD 400 and was the first to begin looking at Scripture in terms of reconciling it with science, and even directs us as to the importance of this: http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm >Actually I've seen just the opposite. Joe Nickell, one of the most >respected shroud investigators (and a man I greatly admire), makes >incredibly convincing arguments that the shroud is a 14th century >fabrication. Umm, this guy isn't even a scientist (he's a former stage magician) and it's pretty easy to debunk just about everything he writes with actual scientific evidence. I'm fairly familiar with his stuff, it's hard to study the information on the shroud and not run across it, and he simply is not credible. None of his articles have ever been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal...unlike a great deal of the evidence that he just conveniently ignores. One thing that quickly becomes clear when looking at Shroud information is that those that believe it to be a fake are very selective about what information they present, and often bring up the same arguments that have long since been scientifically proved invalid, while sites that talk about it as being authentic (which does not necessarily have to mean any kind of supernatural explanation for it) often present the opposing arguments as they are generally so easy to show as false. Here's a page that presents both sides of the argument on whether it is fake or not: http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm The very simple fact is that no one yet has ever been able to produce an image that has *all* the qualities of the shroud...visually, anatomically, biochemically, etc. If we can't do it today, and are still seeking to even explain *what* the image is exactly, how did some unknown medieval artist manage to create it? >Actually there are several explanations - and the lack of perspective on the >shroud's image tends to support the fabrication claim. Lack of perspective?? That is a pretty wild claim, as one of the most amazing things about the shroud is the 3D image encoded into it: http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/3d.htm >As do the >historically inaccurate details (such as the position of the nails from the >supposed crucifixtion which match 14th century popularization but not Roman >practice). Again, this is just totally false and the exact opposite of what is true. The nails on the shroud are in the wrist which has been shown to be the location used for Roman crucification and indeed the only viable location for a nail to support the body weight. This is in sharp contract to all the art of the medieval period (and even much up to today) which shows nails in the palm. It's actually one of the best arguments *for* the shroud being authentic. There is much other forensic evidence from the shroud that simply would not be known to those purported to have faked it. >a site that begins with the line "No One >Can Explain Shroud of Turin Pictures of Jesus" hardly strikes me as >unbiased. Uh why? Since when does science explain everything? They aren't stating it to be the burial cloth of Jesus (actually they clearly state that this can probably never be determined), just that these images cannot be explained which is certainly true. And I'm not saying it's 100% unbiased...clearly on a topic such as this virtually everyone has a bias on one side or the other. >So, even giving every credit, we have competing science and not a consensus. Hardly competing science...Nickell's stuff simply isn't good, peer-reviewed science. What "science" he does quote, like McCrone's work...has been pretty much disproven by everyone else and has basically no corroborating opinions. >However we also have one party emotionally invested in an outcome and that's >a huge red flag right up front. Uh, I would say that your guy is the party emotionally invested in the outcome, as the idea of an authentic shroud conflicts with his views. Christians of faith have no need to believe in a true shroud or not...the Church themselves even does not say it is authentic. Whether the shroud is real or not does not say anything about the existence and/or divinity of Jesus. However, an authentic shroud does *indeed* threaten those that *don't* believe in him or that such a relic could exist. Interesting note...the shroud.com site which I listed in the link above and is one of the main repositories of information on the shroud is run by a photographer from the STURP project who is an Orthodox Jew. He certainly has no "emotional investment" in the outcome but after intense study of it, was convinced it was authentic, enough to want to put all the information on the shroud out so it was more readily available. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250177 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
