|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
18th October 2012, 08:52 AM | #3641 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Re-weave/Getting Past the Experts/threads from grtr cloth
- Rats!
- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth... - "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material. - He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material. - He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address. - I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility. - I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback. - Raspberries!!! --- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
18th October 2012, 09:01 AM | #3642 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
18th October 2012, 09:34 AM | #3643 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
18th October 2012, 09:35 AM | #3644 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
18th October 2012, 10:11 AM | #3645 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
You did not need any opinion from anyone named “Mr Ehrlich”. Nor did you need anything said, done, or not done, by Mme Flury-Lemberg. Common sense (if not a scientific research education) should have told you that the most accurate and authoritative examination by far was probably that of the three C14 labs themselves. Each of which made clear that there was no sign of any such patch on any of their samples. |
18th October 2012, 10:52 AM | #3646 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
I had a debate on the shroud with an old friend of mine, a Young Earth Christian.
When I explained to him that the shroud is an admitted forgery fabricated in the fourteenth century and that its age had been confirmed by carbon dating he had a predictable reply.
Originally Posted by Old Friend
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
18th October 2012, 11:54 AM | #3647 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
If it is done with soot from a source depleted in 14C , "dead carbon", yes. Coal come to mind. But if it is done thru soot coming from a living wood, or recentely collected wood, like fire in a wooden building, no.
But it does not matter because the amount of soot to make the date move one way or the other , is so stageering that it is downright impossible to ignore while examinating a sample (remember all sample were examinated, and certainly cleaned before testing). |
18th October 2012, 12:41 PM | #3648 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
Thank you, that is what I figured.
Originally Posted by Aepervius
Or how a heavily carbon contaminated shroud turns out to be younger than expected rather than older. Or a dozen other rational questions that raises reasonable doubt over the authenticity of the shroud. Really, color me surprised. |
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
18th October 2012, 02:27 PM | #3649 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
Clearly, you are dissappointed not to get the result you desired.
Stll not the result you desired. Still not the result you desired. I am sure he can find it, and I am sure that you have not provided a single quote from the horses mouth. No. You reserve the right to present more unfounded claims. At least try to be honest. "for now", or in other words, you will raise it again later, and demand we jump through the very same hopes. They will not, and an argument by proxy is lame. I doubt if anyone cares about your eructations. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
18th October 2012, 03:26 PM | #3650 |
Winking at the Moon
Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16,711
|
Which is what many people have been telling you all through this thread.
Just address the flippin' carbon dating results. Nothing. Else. Matters. Edited: And please, please, drop the daft notion that the scientific enquiry of dating the shroud can be done by some kind of debate or fake courtroom proceedings. Science doesn't work like that. |
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader |
|
18th October 2012, 03:52 PM | #3651 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Wow, Jabba. Just...wow.
WE TOLD YOU that French re-weaving used the same fibers as the rest of the cloth. We provided enormous numbers of references. Yet you refused to believe it. Now you accept it, but not the implications. This is the hight of absurdity. |
18th October 2012, 05:38 PM | #3652 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
|
I'm pleased that you accept the information from the experts. I'm a little disappointed that you are disappointed. I would hope that you (or I or anyone on this board) would be more interested in the facts and finding the truth than defending a position. I know that that's not how people work, but I wish it were. I don't like being proven wrong, but I'd prefer to correct my beliefs rather than continue to be wrong. I hope you are the same way.
Ward |
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~ - Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347 |
|
18th October 2012, 06:59 PM | #3653 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
Cartoon Rating/Implausible Reaving/Sour Grapes
So did everyone else. You don't say. That's the trouble with expert witnesses, eh Jabba? They don't make faith-based conclusions. I'd be amazed if this was a first time for the poor man. I'll bet you don't. Who gets to decide what counts as 'effective'? A serious researcher would have been pleased to have learned something. |
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
18th October 2012, 08:11 PM | #3654 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
^
This. Thanks for actually calling, Jabba. You realise you've just done more research than Marino and Benford? |
18th October 2012, 10:18 PM | #3655 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
|
|
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~ - Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347 |
|
18th October 2012, 11:38 PM | #3656 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I’m waiting eagerly the Marino’s answer if it arrives someday. I bet a beer Marino finds an ad hoc explanation of what “actually Ehrlich said” or something else, but not rectifies. A vague reference to “other irrefutable evidences” is likely. The difference between Marino and Jabba is the first is a professional sindonist. And a professional sindonist never recognizes his argument is inconclusive. In ancient Spanish is said: “Sostenella y no enmendalla”. (Something as: “Hold up it and never correct”).
But I also bet another beer Jabba also finds an ad hoc issue for his sindonist beliefs. He is the ingenuous sindonist but failures to prove his faith never discourage a good sindonist. He will return to attack with news “evidences”. |
19th October 2012, 12:15 AM | #3657 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
^
Possibly, Dave Mo, possibly. But as they also say: ¡Que vengan! or Bring it on! And while beer is a most excellent beverage, I think you'll find visits to the breakfast nook more in character here. |
19th October 2012, 05:45 AM | #3658 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
In all honesty, Jabba just did something skeptical. He didn't accept what some people (that is, us) said about what other people (that is, experts) had to say on a topic. He went to the source. Unfortunately for Jabba, in this case said source confirmed what others in the forum have been saying for months.
It looks like Jabba is going to have to come up with another reason as to why the carbon-14 dating is "incorrect". So far we're ruled out contamination and invisible re-weaving. I don't know if there are any other alternatives. |
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) |
|
19th October 2012, 05:54 AM | #3659 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Effective Debate
Ward,
- Thanks. - I always want to win. - I also want to believe in transcendence, the mystical, "God" (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) and Jesus... I don't think that reality is the deterministic (or even, uncertain) machine that science and logic seems to demand -- and, as I find evidence against that belief, I will be disappointed... - As you acknowledge, that's how we humans work. - And then, from my website at http://messiahornot.com/: 16. But then, I must also accept that I am not now (nor have I ever been) impartial in regard to this issue -- and that consequently, I cannot fully trust my own conclusions and suspicions... 17. And now, being as old as I am, I suspect that this issue could really be important… 18. And then, can I really “entrust my life to Jesus” (a real neurological event) – which is surely what Jesus wanted us to do, and what would probably do me all sorts of good – if I’m not pretty darn sure that he was who he said he was? I doubt it. 19.What I need, therefore, is access to an effective presentation of both sides of this story. 20. Will my current suspicions and conclusions hold up in face of the logic and evidence of dedicated skeptics? 21. That's the question. - Thanks, again. --- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
19th October 2012, 05:58 AM | #3660 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
|
|
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~ - Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347 |
|
19th October 2012, 06:00 AM | #3661 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Effective Debate
- Continuing: I also think that there is much more to the Jesus concept/story than is first seen by the rational eye... That's what I try to show in that website.
--- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
19th October 2012, 06:04 AM | #3662 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Re-weave/Getting Past the Experts/threads from grtr cloth
|
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
19th October 2012, 06:05 AM | #3663 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
19th October 2012, 06:07 AM | #3664 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
Mindess Preachystuff
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
19th October 2012, 06:11 AM | #3665 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
19th October 2012, 06:18 AM | #3666 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Jabba:
Please do not take this as a personal attack, but the hilited area demonstrates a fundamental problem of which you should make yourself aware. You have spoken of "bias" before, claiming that you are no more biased that the rest of us--but consider your statement. Mmme. F-L adamantly states that there is no "patch"; that she would not have missed one if one were there. The recent restoration did not see, find, or detect a patch. Mr. Erlich pointed out to you that a patch would not be "invisible"... ...and yet, instead of accepting the fact that all available data support the idea that the cloth is a medieval artifact, you are "reserving the right" to come up with "exculpatory evidence"...which is not how science is done. You start with a conclusion: The 14C dates must be wrong. Every piece of information you encounter is filtered through that presupposition. Never mind that the 14C dates are reliable, and consistent; never mind that no researcher who has examined the cloth in person has found the slightest evidence of a "patch" (not to mention a patch that would conveniently alter the apparent date to precisely the same degree in three independent labs), never mind that experts have told you that "invisible" reweaving is actually perfectly visible to the naked eye. Despite all evidence, you are committed to your conclusion. What you should do is start with the evidence. There is a cloth. The cloth has been carbon-dated by three independent labs. The carbon dating indicates that the cloth is a medieval artifact. No textile expert who has examined the actual cloth has provided the least hint that there is reason to distrust the 14C dates. With that in hand, you can then reach a conclusion: the cloth is a medieval artifact. Do you see, and understand, the difference? Instead of trying to prove that the experts are incompetent, or in cahoots, spend your energy determining what it means that the cloth, in fact, dates from the late-13th to mid-14th centuries. Work with what is there, not with what you wish were there. (BTW, good job on following through on Erlich--now apply what you have learned.) |
19th October 2012, 06:36 AM | #3667 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Irradiation
Blue,
- For the moment, at least, invisible re-weave and contamination seem to be ruled out... (I hardly ever give up entirely. But then, what's important here (to me) is the effect that our confrontation is having upon a theoretical neutral audience -- not on whether or not one of us concedes.) - Unless you guys have another preference as to the next sub-etc-issue for discussion, I'll next look into the alternative of some sort of irradiation or scorch causing the 14th century dating. - Again, this is what I mean by "tedious" -- but, in my opinion, it is also the only way to actually get somewhere in serious debate. - If you guys think you have a better smoking gun against Shroud authenticity than "there appears to be no way to explain a 1300 year discrepancy in the carbon dating," I should probably take on your "better" nominee first. --- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
19th October 2012, 06:54 AM | #3668 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
What an abject failure is your presentation here. Not only does your case fail abysmally in terms of the facts of the matter, it also fails even more dramatically in that it displays itself to have never had any intention of succeeding on the basis of evidence. I probably should add a third measure of failure - your total inability to present a cogent and rational argument regardless of what the evidence might say. Why not just cut to the chase and say "Goddidit!"? It's just as (un)likely, but at least it has the advantage of displaying a little bit of (albeit misguided) integrity. It's not tedious; it's assinine. And the only place your 'debate' is going is down, as in 'gurgler'. You should probably take on the slugs attacking your raspberry canes, but of course you won't. Slugs: 1NAGL |
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
19th October 2012, 06:58 AM | #3669 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Effective Debate
Slowmover (not meant as an insult, just think it's a "cooler" name, but I'll stick with the "Slowvehicle" if you prefer.),
-The result of the carbon dating is only one piece in a whole pile of evidence -- a piece that, in my opinion, is greatly outweighed by the evidence for a much earlier date. I've presented very little of what I perceive as evidence for a much earlier date because the carbon dating (the best evidence against Shroud authenticity) has been the preferred subject in our debate so far. --- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
19th October 2012, 07:10 AM | #3670 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
Coming Soon!!! Bluuuuurd!
I wish it was my place to say "How dare you?" Fortunately for us all, the opinions of those who reject evidence out-of-hand in favour of superstitious wishful thinking are as easily discarded as childood beliefs in Tooth Bunnies and Easter Fairies. Again, fortunately, what you perceive as evidence isn't anything of the sort. It is, however, comedy gold. Moreover, it's the best way of winning converts to atheism short of forcing people to read a DOC thread. Keep up the good work! |
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
19th October 2012, 07:11 AM | #3671 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
I have one sone who, like me, is atheist, and another who is quite Christian. Neither of them can stomach the intentional deception you continue to display here. There are ways to believe while maintaining your honesty and your morals. You have chosen to believe another way, a way that requires the twisting of facts, the denial of reality, and the pretense of rationality.
As my Christian son would say: "If you want to believe, then believe, but if your belief requires misrepresentation, then you believe in a lying God." I am proud of both sons and may invite both of them to read this thread, though I doubt either could stomach much of it. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
19th October 2012, 07:22 AM | #3672 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
19th October 2012, 07:28 AM | #3673 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
Props to you and yours. One of my bestest friends here at JREF is an honest Christian and I respect him and his ilk, both in the interworld and IRL, at least as much as my heathen friends. Often quite a bit more. Those who choose wilful ignorance and outright lying in defence of their weak faith I despise. |
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
19th October 2012, 07:55 AM | #3674 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
And yet again you continue posting this rubbish.
The radiocarbon dating is one element of the evidence that the shroud is a medieval fake. The sum of the individual elements is greater than anyone of them individually and leads only to one reasonable conclusion; the shroud is a medieval fake. To summarise: The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic, spectroscopic and radiocarbon), expert examination (textile, weave and artistic style) and historical research (comparison to others, culture and documentation) and is supported by other evidence:
Like your fellow believers you have failed to contradict any one of these points, let alone their sum. |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
19th October 2012, 07:59 AM | #3675 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Summary of the evidence against the shroud's authenticity.
1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds) c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure 2. Physiological: e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough) 3. Textile: g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well; i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East 4. Testimony: j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake 5. Artistic: k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period 6. Reproducibility: m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods 7. Analytic: n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin o) chemical testing shows the same p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence) 8. Cultural: q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths; s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths; t) there any no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355 9. Serological: v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
19th October 2012, 08:15 AM | #3676 |
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
|
Jabba, if there's no patch and there's no problem with the 14C dating then all other evidence is moot.
If the material of the shroud was made in the 14th century then it cannot possibly be the burial shroud of a man who died in the 1st century. If you think otherwise then you are a lost cause so far as logic and reason go. |
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin |
|
19th October 2012, 09:08 AM | #3677 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Rich:
You have been tap-dancing around the "patch" solution to the 14C dates. You have made dark suggestions of "other evidence" that "greatly outweighs" the 14C dates. Well, now is the time to present your "other evidence". Not the time to tell me that you have other evidence. Not the time to explain how you are going to set up "rules" about how you are going to present other evidence. Not the time to explain that your "evidence" is the fact that you need the cloth to be real. Not the time to negotiate about which points you will "concede". Now is the time to present your best argument. If you are going to claim a vast, lengthy, international and ecumenical conspiracy, now is the time. If you are going to claim a miracle, now is the time. The cloth has been correctly dated. Three independent labs confirm the date. Any "new evidence" you present will have to overcome that hurdle, first. No sense talking about any other evidence, any other theories, any other remote possibilities. Since the cloth is a medieval artifact, it cannot be the Authentic Shroud™. Now, if what you are going to say is that you believe in the cloth despite all evidence, just say so and have done with it. I don't mean to seem unkind, or unfriendly--but I taught high school too many years to care if you like me because I will not coddle you. Please consider cutting right to the chase, and presenting your best evidence, right up front. ETA: PS: you have a PM. |
19th October 2012, 09:37 AM | #3678 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
19th October 2012, 09:51 AM | #3679 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
19th October 2012, 12:52 PM | #3680 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|