>Oh come on! That's semantics... millions are clearly, vocally NOT willing >to make that compromise... ain't that "many"?
Again...this is not what your original statement was. But besides the point of most of this argument, so I won't rehash it. >I did not >make a claim that it was impossible, just that I'm becoming less convinced >of the possibility. Semantics, Jim. ;-) And I'm arguing that I don't see this regardless of whether you consider it opinion or fact. >You may not agree with his views on this matter, but at least give him the >respect that his work deserves. I'll happily agree that he may be wrong >about any number of things, but his research represents dedicated, quality >work. What research?? Again, it's hard to respect him because he simply does not properly look at *all* the scientific evidence. Or even the majority of it. He takes the very few pieces that support what he thinks and throws out all the rest. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot support or respect someone that does that and then passes off his "conclusions" as fact. Scientists that support the authenticity of the shroud do not do this...they look at all the conflicting information and find (or attempt to find) explanations for it, whether scientifically, historically, archaelogically, etc. And most will agree that there are still inconsistencies in terms of proving its authenticity. None of these however even come close to proving that it is a fake. >I think you'll find that most scientists are skeptics. Of course they are....as am I. In fact many of the scientists that participated in the STURP project said that they expected to go in and prove that the shroud was a fake almost immediately and were quite surprised at what they found. I myself thought it was total bunk when I first heard about it...and indeed most Christians if asked would probably say it was fake as well. I was specifically referring to those that in spite of all evidence to the contrary and being aware of all of the evidence, still argue the shroud is a medieval forgery. I forget the exact quote, but one researcher after studying all the scientific evidence said that it would be more of a miracle for the shroud to have been created by a medieval artist than for it to be the real burial shroud of Christ. >Are you seriously saying that somebody with the credentials and body of work >of Nickell should be ignored simply because he's not been published in a >journal No...if his arguments made sense and had not already been proved false otherwise, I would certainly listen to them. >He makes his living as a document analyst and investigator and what little >his books bring in. It's a mistake, one that you're not alone in making, in >believing that skeptics WANT to debunk everything. Skeptics want evidence. Oh come on, he says himself in interviews that he is the "world's only full-time, professional, paranormal investigator" and that he's never found something that he couldn't prove as false other than instances where that simply is not possible (such as UFO sightings). I also find his claim that he is not just out to "debunk" everything hard to buy...specifically because this is a clear case where he *is* ignoring a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that the vast majority of stuff he investigates *is* indeed total bunk. But I do find his arguments on the shroud incomplete, incorrect and easily refuted. Can he reproduce an image that superficially looks like the shroud and has many of the same properties? Absolutely. But microscopically it falls apart...as do all his other arguments against it. >The Shroud is a great example of a "fishy" story. An object appearing in >the 14th (a time rife with religious fraud and false artifacts) century >claiming miraculous origins? Shouldn't we be skeptical? Absolutely. The time frame in terms of its definitive appearance is most certainly suspect...but hardly proof that it is fake. And again, we already have evidence that the cloth at the very least is older than this...much older. Both textile analysis and vanillin decay show this. One must wonder how a medieval "faker" even got hold of such an old burial cloth of Palestinian origin...one that was still in pristine shape. > For that matter I >couldn't find any not-respected atheist or skeptic that claimed it either. Oh believe, me I've met them. You are probably right though that any "respected" atheist would not try to refute his existence. >There's no possible way to conclude 1) that it was removed within days of >days, 2) that nothing was disturbed. Actually, there is. If this was indeed a burial shroud, we know for a fact that it was removed within a few days at most because if it was not, the products of the body decomposing would have greatly stained and then quickly disintegrated the cloth. This clearly did not happen. Evidence that is was not disturbed is found in the blood stains themselves. You would expect these to be damaged if the cloth was removed from the body (as they would be a point where it would adhere to the body) yet such damage is not found at all. >There are millions, hundreds of millions of things that we don't understand >and can't explain and none of them are particularly threatening to atheists. There is a big difference between things we don't understand...and things that appear to have paranormal or supernatural causes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:250245 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
