I won't accept it until we find the tomb and it's directly linked by the phrase "Jesus wuz here! Peace out" scrawled on the rocky wall.
On Jan 9, 2008 1:40 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:47 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Oh dear God no..... > > > > >How much of his work have you read? Do you have ANY experience with > > him > > >beyond the Shroud? > > > > Yes...I've seen his work on forged documents/writing and also have read > > much of what he has written on other religious artifacts, most recently > > the ossuary of James. And for the record, I've not seen anything to > > discredit him on these. > > > > >His work covers several decades and no serious challenge to his > > credibility > > >has ever been raised to my knowledge. > > > > Not at all true, there have been quite a few in the scientific > > community that have questioned his credentials to perform "scientific > > testing". You have to keep in mind as well that much of what he is > > But what "scientific testing" has he claimed to do? In my experience, as an > investigator, he reports on the testing of others. > > He definitely has done experiments... but I'm not sure how "scientific" I'd > call them. For example he showed that the Nazca lines could be drawn from > the ground using basic tools and math. It was a good experiment, a fun > experiment but not truly "scientific" - all he set out to do was show that > it could be done and he did it. > > I can't really find any claims made by him of doing any "lab work" or the > like. This is especially true in the case of the Shroud where he's never > been allowed access. > > > doing by making false claims about the shroud being faked is to > > completely discredit the scientists who work has shown otherwise. You > > can bet that when he says that peer-reviewed scientific studies were > > not done properly, those that did them are going to stand up and show > > how wrong he is! There's a fair amount of this debate (which centers > > around the most recent C-14 findings) here: > > I still don't really see the problem here. There's definitely argument and > debate but as far as I can tell nobody is doing anything "wrong" per se - > each side is presenting and refuting evidence, calling each other names, > questioning their credentials and so forth. In other words everyday > science. ;^) > > > >In this case I haven't seen any instances where he's ignored evidence. > > > > Whoa, you've got to be kidding! The majority of his claim that it is > > fake is based on McCrone's finding that suggested paint which has long > >snip< > > the shroud. To then place his conclusions above every other scientist > > then and since is simply not reasonable. > > Possibly not. It may be a mistake, it may be ill-advised. But it simply > doesn't impugn Nickell. This HAPPENS ALL THE TIME in science! Scientists > are people and make the same mistakes that we do. A scientist who is wrong, > even vehemently, grossly wrong isn't drummed out of the profession! > > Rather scientists who are consistently wrong, consistently sloppy (or plain > dishonest) become more and more marginalized. > > I'm suggesting that discounting Nickell (especially discounting his entire > body of work) because of this is wrong, not that he's definitely right. > Nickell may very well be wrong in this, but his work (wrong tho' it may be) > can still be of high quality. He's not an outlier (he's not fighting an > overwhelming consensus on this topic) - the shroud is a controversial topic. > I don't think we're arguing about that. > > So either Nickell (and McCrone) are so influential that they can generate > such controversy or there are serious questions. Honestly it doesn't > interest me enough to find out but I see nothing which would make me lean in > either direction (if we're just talking about the age of the shroud). > > > >Again, what's the "fake" here? That's it's simply not as old as we > > >Could it simply have been a forgery from the 1st century rather than > > >14th? Or is "fake" related only to the connection with Jesus as the > > son of God? > > > > I believe I already answered this. I've not read Nickell's latest book > > so not sure what that says, but he has certainly claimed up until now > > that it is a forgery (he calls it the "Fraud of Turin")...that someone > > created it. This is what is simply not a viable conclusion. As I > > I agree it may not be a viable conclusion, but it's a very logical > hypothesis. > > Religious fraud was RAMPANT during the time. Artifacts were popping up all > over the place - over a dozen churches in Italy claimed to have the head of > John the Baptist. The lack of any history before then is also telling. > > All I'm saying is that it is a reasonable, logical hypothesis. > > There is clearly controversy about the Shroud, enough to make me skeptical > of any definitive answers. To sum up my opinions: > > +) I see little evidence that convinces me of any timeline. The historic > evidence is telling, but not damning. The scientific evidence is > inconclusive and contentious. > > +) I see no definitive evidence for a purposeful forgery/creation or for a > natural processes (latent image). (In fact these aren't mutually exclusive > since any forger could have wrapped a corpse to create the forgery if a case > is made that wrapping a corpse could generate the image). > > +) I see no evidence at all that supports any paranormal suggestions. > > +) I see no evidence at all that supports any direct connection with Jesus > Christ. > > +) With the lack of access the testing needed to answer any of these > questions won't be forthcoming. > > > >But other than that there's not much difference, no amount ignorance > > >anything is evidence for any claim, supernatural or otherwise. > > Skeptics (at > > >least organized skeptics) just don't consider things in that way. > > > > Of course, I totally agree. But a *good* skeptic cannot just pick and > > chose those pieces of evidence he wants to consider. To do so, as > > Nickell clearly has done here, is to lose credibility. > > Perhaps... as I said my light reading on this has Nickell addressing all the > evidence I've seen and choosing to consider it low quality. That's > different. Still, anybody can be unreasonably stubborn, even a researcher > as good as Nickell (yes, I said it). ;^) > > But a good skeptic simply can't use the "since we don't know how it was done > it must be X" argument. I'm serious. That one's in the handbook. > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:250328 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
