> I can agree with all of that every single thing you say. BUT - that > still doesn't mean that their aren't many (MANY) people not willing to > compromise on this
Certainly...I agree with that. But this is not what you said. You said that it's "not a compromise many are willing to make". That I disagree with...it *is* a compromise many make, and have no problem making. > > No... it doesn't. I'm sorry to be pendantic but the science doesn't > "support" the idea. Rather it simply doesn't contradict it. Exact phrasing of my meaning aside, your argument was that science and religion cannot reconcile with each other, and the point is that they clearly can. > You can't claim reconcilation for faith and science and only choose to > examine a single, flexible faith out of the thousands that do have > existed. That was simply the one we were discussing...it does not mean that *any* religion can thus be reconciled with science (or not). Clearly such a statement would be patently false. > I'm sorry - I actually won't get into an argument about the Shroud for > now. Suffice to say that we disagree. Not sure why you say this and then spend many paragraphs arguing about it! LOL > Which makes him very good at understanding deception and fraud. But not science. I actually have a background in magic as well (my dad is a magician and I performed for several years myself.) And yes, someone with that background is very good at finding fraud in *another performer*. I'm sure he is quite good at debunking things like psychics and such...but that means absolutely nothing in terms of his understanding of all the science involved in studying the shroud and how it might have been created. As I said, he simply ignores way too much of it and focuses on the very few people that support his views, and states many things as "fact" that have already been scientifically disproven. > He has a PHD in literary investigation and folklore. That is not a science degree of any type. > He's a senior > Research Fellow for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of > Claims of the Paranormal. Haha, that's pretty funny. Yeah, like *that's* a real accredited science degree. > Nickell is a respected researcher. Uh, by who? Other skeptics only. Again, until he is published in actual scientific, peer-reviewed journals, you cannot make sure a statement about his credentials. The very fact that someone with virtually no scientific training whatsoever tries to pass himself off as an expert in these areas alone makes him worthy of total skepticism. > It could > be a medieval creation on very old cloth (similar to many Ossuaries > that are popping up where a modern forger as added material to an > ancient artifact). "Creation" meaning man-made. No other man-made object has yet been found that has the properties of the shroud. Generally when people talk about it being "fake" they mean someone created it. Could it still have been of natural origin of some means and medieval in origin? Possibly, but the evidence certainly does not reflect that. > "fake" only really enters into it if the claim is made that this is > the actual, factual shroud of Jesus Christ. No, it has more to do with it being created by someone versus being an actual burial shroud (whether of Jesus or some other person). > And there's very little evidence, besides medievel anecdotes, that > links the shroud to Jesus. Well, other than the great similarity to the gospel accounts and increasing historical accounts that pre-date that time period, this is true. Considering the time period we are talking about and relatively sparse historical record, to definitely link it to him is certainly not likely to happen. So?? > To make the assumption that medieval people were any less clever than > we are is a huge mistake. "Because we don't know" is NEVER evidence > for anything! I never said it was proof, certainly such an argument never can be proof in and of itself...simply that you cannot prove it was a fake until you can demonstrate how it can be made, including how someone of that time period could produce it with their lack of technology. Keep in mind such attributes as the fact that it is a negative, it is only microns thick (pretty much ruling out any kind of pigment as McCrone states was used) and now we know the exact same image is also on the back of the cloth, in exact alignment with the one on the front. No one has yet come up with a plausible or re-creatable hypothesis for how such an image could be man-made. > In short we can't know - we can make conjectures. But even if one of > those methods (or a combination of them) were used we can't replicate > the history down to the minute - perhaps it WAS created in the 14th > century but from 1st centry cloth? Again, if you study *everything* about the shroud....this is simply not very plausible. Possible, yes...but highly unlikely. > As far as I've read the "3D Image" encoded is that of an essentially > flat bas relief, NOT that of a full, three-dimensional human face. Not at all, bas relief cannot reproduce the amount of 3D the shroud shows. > Try this yourself: dip your face in something then wrap a piece of > linen around it. It won't look like the shroud. Of course not. The shroud was not "wrapped" around the face, it was loosely draped over it (as best we can tell). And again, explaining *how* the 3D encoding got into the image is exactly one of the things that scientists are still trying to figure out, no one has been able to reproduce it by any means that would explain the other attributes of the image (the most difficult being how superficial on the linen that it is.) > It's good evidence... but if it's the best then it's not very good at > all. No, it just scratches the surface of what has been found. There is little doubt that the man on the shroud suffered brutal beatings and a crucifixion, which have been shown to be completely accurate from a forensic point of view. Someone would have had to have an amazing knowledge of the human body and the process it goes through during such an ordeal to reproduce what is there. > Again, even taking all your evidence at face value does not in > any way place JESUS in this shroud. Where have I ever said that it did? My point is that the overwhelming evidence of the science put forth to study it cannot prove that it is *not*. > For example McCrone's evidence was ignored (and he was vilified) but > no confirming tests were allowed. Uh, what evidence exactly? His evidence was not "ignored", it has long since been tested and debunked. He is vilified for the very reason that he refuses in the face of all other evidence to admit that he is wrong. He even stated that he would "stake my reputation on the shroud being a fake." Not a good statement for an open-minded scientist to make. > The radio-carbon dating results > were disputed but no confirming tests allowed. As of yet, no. It's only been fairly recent that it was fairly certain that the original tests invalid. Also, the Church is understandably reluctant to allow more of the cloth to be destroyed. It's possible it may be done again in the future though, particularly if the technology improves to use a much smaller sample size. > The tests that might put the issue to rest (radio carbon dating of > part of the image, destructive spectroscopy, etc) aren't allowed. How would they put the issue "to rest"? None of these would ever prove anything about the actual man on the cloth either. There is certainly a good deal of evidence that the cloth is 1st century and estimates on the faulty carbon dating put it about this time range as well. > It's a statement of unending fact. "No One Can Explain" Like so many > Shroud supporters there's no indication at all of any controversy, > questions or proposals - it's a statement of fact. Clearly you are not reading these sites completely, as they have many of the theories for how the image *may* have been formed. The latest I find particularly fascinating in fact, that it is actually due to an enzymatic reaction between the decomposing body and the residual soap on the linen (again, the washing of the linen is consistent with 1st century weaving). This also may explain how the image is mirrored on the reverse side of the cloth. > For example you don't need to respect or trust Nickell > when we points out that the chemical "blood" results obtained are very > close to those known to be produced from tempera paint. You instead > look at the scientist being referenced. Right...and that scientist is someone that is totally out on a limb by himself and whose conclusions no one else supports, and whose work he would not allow to be peer-reviewed, and was published prior to the conclusions of the entire rest of the STURP committee. I'm sorry but you can always find that one scientist who will stick to his faulty conclusions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but you certainly cannot give such conclusions much credence. Here's a good article on the various controversies on the shroud and theories of origin, and includes a discussion of McCrone's research. It also includes various things that do deviate from the gospel record to some degree. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf > How so? He has no investment in the matter one way or the other. Sure he does. He makes his living debunking myths and frauds. > The authenticity of the shroud simply must mean more to faithful > Christians than it would to atheists. Sorry, I just don't agree. While I am Christian, I am very much also a scientist and find interest in this more from a scientific point of view than any other. I can continue to be a Christian regardless of whether the shroud is a fake or not. > Even if the shroud was clearly, unambigiously the death shroud of > Jesus Christ (an actual historical person, as I'm sure any atheist > would agree) does not give him any claim to divinity. Well assuming your statement about any atheistic agreeing in the historical figure (not so sure about that) is true, again, why should Christians care about its authenticity in the least? As you say, whether it is authentic or not, does not matter in terms of his divinity and thus, their belief in him as God. Atheists though are threatened by the idea because if the shroud is authentic, and it clearly mirrors the biblical account of the passion story, then it's much harder to discount the rest of the story. Keep in mind that if the shroud *is* authentic, then the body would have been removed for some reason from it within days of death. It's hard to comprehend a reason for doing this, or how it was done so that the image and blood were not disturbed. And yes, I know this doesn't *prove* anything just because we cannot explain it. But I do think that attempts to explain this are particularly threatening to atheists because they *imply* a miraculous event....mainly because they are beyond our experience so far. Previously for instance, the most likely explanation seemed to be some kind of radioactive event...similar to the atomic bomb blasts that created "shadows" of people on building walls at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While this has since been disproven, one can see how while this is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis (in terms of being testable, etc.) it certainly would be difficult to explain how such an event could occur within a burial shroud and not be miraculous, and thus is a rather threatening idea to someone who does not want to believe in any divinity of Jesus. It's much easier to just believe it is a fake and explain it away simply. > Damn... it looks like I did argue. ;^) No kidding! I personally love a good debate though, and I do find the shroud endlessly fascinating and something even most Christians know very little about. > My point is simply that the case is not cut and dried and even > granting those points does nothing to unify science and faith. I never said it unified them...just that there is no reason to believe that the two must always conflict and need compromise to co-exist. > That's the real point to be made since we got off topic: how does the > shroud do anything to reconcile science and faith? Again, it lends credence to the entire gospel account of the passion and death of Christ. Does it prove his divinity? Of course not...faith should not and never will require or need proof. I do though find the lack of a uncontroverted explanation for the formation of the image quite compelling...not from a scientific point of view, of course. But just as intellectual curiosity. It's been quite interesting to follow the studies on it for over 25 years and see various theories come and go. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:250225 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
