God, Science and Naturalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The “fiasco” charaterization is from Thomas de Wesselow, who is an art historian at Oxford University and the author of THE SIGN.
See post #115
 
So you have no credentials to speak of. I thought as much. Of course an art historian doesn’t really have a lot of interest to say about C-14 dating either, so there you go.
 
There is a huge difference between relying on the results of experts in their field as data relevant to your field and dismissing the results of experts in their field because it conflicts with your opinions. If you can’t see that, then there is no point in further discussion.
 
Last edited:
whatistrue said:
There is a huge difference between relying on the results of experts in their field as data relevant to your field and dismissing the results of experts in their field because it conflicts with your opinions. If you can’t see that, then there is no point in further discussion.
Click to expand...
Robert Rucker is a nuclear engineer of 30 years experience, and he runs a website called shroudresearch.net. Ian Wilson has researched the history of the Shroud for the last fifty years and has published several books in that regard. Pope Pius XI had three degrees and researched the Shroud for several years. Dr. Pierre Barbet was an experienced surgeon when he made his forensic examinations of the Shroud’s negatives. Many other experts in their field ought to be included here.

In might be noted that none of the 21 scientists who signed the Shroud’s C-14 report in 1988 knew anything about the Shroud or its archeology. The authors the two books I mentioned are historians, not scientists. Check the one star reviews on Amazon.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
How do you know that the image is of the corpse of Jesus and not someone else?
Click to expand...
In THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST!, Prof. Fanti conducts a probability analysis and concludes that the odds of the corpse whose image is on the Shroud not being that of Jesus are about 1 in 83 million.

It is an expensive book, but worth every penny.
 
Last edited:
tootle_toot said:
In might be noted that none of the 21 scientists who signed the Shroud’s C-14 report in 1988 knew anything about the Shroud or its archeology.
Click to expand...
Which is a point in favor of the results being untainted by expectations.

I repeat that I don’t care if you personally believe in the Shroud’s authenticity, but to keep repeating debunked notions and junk science in support does not help your case, and can even make it more difficult to evangelize people with analytical minds who are already at least half convinced that believers are a lot of credulous fools. Believe what you like, but please keep it to yourself if all you can do is repeat the statements of others, especially if you only repeat the statements of others who support your preconceptions with no regard to scientific credibility.
 
tootle_toot said:
In THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST! , Prof. Fanti conducts a probability analysis and concludes that the odds of the corpse whose image is on the Shroud not being that of Jesus are about 1 in 83 million.
Click to expand...
Oh really? I thought that was the probability that the Shroud was false, i.e., from a different time period or a painting. I thought it does not give the probability of an alternative, i.e., that it was authentic but not of Jesus.
 
tootle_toot said:
48.png
whatistrue:
There is a huge difference between relying on the results of experts in their field as data relevant to your field and dismissing the results of experts in their field because it conflicts with your opinions. If you can’t see that, then there is no point in further discussion.
Click to expand...
Robert Rucker is a nuclear engineer of 30 years experience, and he runs a website called shroudresearch.net. Ian Wilson has researched the history of the Shroud for the last fifty years and has published several books in that regard.
Click to expand...
So not biased in any way…
 
In addition to the Shroud of Turin, other miracle claims within the Catholic Church tradition are somewhat numerous. They include:
  • The liquefaction of the blood of Saint Januarius in Naples, Italy three times per year. Note: One of those times is December 16 and the liquefaction failed this past week (16 December 2020)
  • The apparitions at Fatima (1917)
  • The apparitions at Lourdes (1858)
  • The apparitions to Saint Faustina (circa 1931-1938)
  • The transformation of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ at every Catholic Mass
  • more
 
whatistrue said:
, but to keep repeating debunked notions and junk science . . .
Click to expand...
Sir, you have provided no discussion points or references (aside from Mark Twain) to support your arguments. All that we seem to get from you are the same repeated assertions and inappropriate demands.
I even have to reference recent medievalist books for you. In my opinion you must really know very little about the Holy Shroud.

BTW, the 1978 STuRP was not “junk science” and the hypothesis that the Shroud’s C-14 content has been enhanced by a neutron flux has certainly not been debunked. What archeological research* has falsified is the hypothesis that the Shroud’s C-14 data is indicative of a 14th century date.

*THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST!, Fanti/Malfi, 2nd edition, 2020.
Prof. Fanti’s research into 6th century Gold coins proved that the images of Christ found on these coins was derived from the facial image on the Shroud. Therefore the hypothesis that the Shroud’s C-14 data proves a 14th origin is falsified. The Shroud was available to Byzantine coin engravers in the 6th century. This is NOT “junk science.”

Sir, are you really just trolling me with your repeated, unsupported, assertions?
 
tootle_toot said:
Prof. Fanti’s research into 6th century Gold coins proved that the images of Christ found on these coins was derived from the facial image on the Shroud. Therefore the hypothesis that the Shroud’s C-14 data proves a 14th origin is falsified. The Shroud was available to Byzantine coin engravers in the 6th century. This is NOT “junk science.”
Click to expand...
Ok, as much as I hate to go down this rabbit hole. How do you know that the 14 century shroud makers didn’t use the ancient coins to design the face on the shroud. Because they seem similar isn’t proof of what came first. Perhaps there was an earlier shroud circulating? Goodness knows, Christians were “finding” relics of Jesus everywhere…how many foreskins are claimed…pieces of the cross, enough to build several crosses…why not a shroud or two?
 
tootle_toot said:
*THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST!, Fanti/Malfi, 2nd edition, 2020.
Prof. Fanti’s research into 6th century Gold coins proved that the images of Christ found on these coins was derived from the facial image on the Shroud. Therefore the hypothesis that the Shroud’s C-14 data proves a 14th origin is falsified. The Shroud was available to Byzantine coin engravers in the 6th century. This is NOT “junk science.”
Click to expand...
Honestly, this is the best illustration of a 6th century coin I can find. The image is meant to be of Jesus.

Are you being serious?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top