snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 24 August 2008, 07:26 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,644
Icon215 Shroud of Turin stirs new controversy

A Colorado couple researching the shroud dispute radiocarbon dating of the alleged burial cloth of Jesus, and Oxford has agreed to help them reexamine the findings.

http://www.latimes.com/features/reli...,4950965.story
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24 August 2008, 07:48 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

So first it sounds a lot like this fella will never really admit defeat on this one, so whats the point? Its like the people who want to debate creationism but you know there is zero chance that they are gonna ever admit defeat no matter what arguments are levied against them because they are starting from a position that isn't applicable to science.

Now, I don't know the background of this guy, but from the article thats the sound.


Secondly, as a snopes poster once said (I shall quote the best I can), "Even if we can prove beyond a doubt that the shroud really does show an image of a Jewish man from that region from roughly 2000 years ago, how does this prove that man was Jesus? And How does it prove anything else?"

-MB
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 25 August 2008, 12:28 AM
JFB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
"Even if we can prove beyond a doubt that the shroud really does show an image of a Jewish man from that region from roughly 2000 years ago, how does this prove that man was Jesus? And How does it prove anything else?"
It doesn't. But it reopens the possibility of the shroud being authentic (whatever "authentic" would be).

Ain't hope grand?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25 August 2008, 10:12 AM
Skeptic's Avatar
Skeptic Skeptic is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2005
Location: Logan, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,790
Default

Quote:
" (The radiocarbon date) ...is like a square peg in a round hole. It's not fitting properly, and the question is why."
What doesn't it fit. It doesn't fit their predetermined outcome, and the reason is that their outcome is incorrect. If I think that 3 + 3 = 7 then the scientific view of the question will not fit my expected outcome.

I'm also intrigued that he thinks it is "1300 years out of date". Why not 500 years, or 2300, or 345. Again, a predetermined outcome.

But I just remembered, we're arguing with fundamentalists. And to think we expected them to talk sense.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25 August 2008, 10:25 AM
Floater's Avatar
Floater Floater is offline
 
Join Date: 24 February 2000
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 6,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
I'm also intrigued that he thinks it is "1300 years out of date". Why not 500 years, or 2300, or 345. Again, a predetermined outcome.
Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25 August 2008, 11:06 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floater View Post
Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.
Like dinosaur bones, God put that letter there. It's all part of His plan, and who are you to question it?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07 November 2008, 03:32 PM
pob14's Avatar
pob14 pob14 is offline
 
Join Date: 31 December 2002
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floater View Post
Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.

Not to put words in Skeptic's mouth, but what I think he meant by his question was, the assumption that it's 1300 years out of date is the same as the assumption that it's genuine. In other words, the neutral position would be "the date could be wrong, let's check to see what the right date is", not "the date is wrong, here's the right one."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07 November 2008, 03:43 PM
Admiraldinty's Avatar
Admiraldinty Admiraldinty is offline
 
Join Date: 31 July 2004
Location: Lowell, MA
Posts: 4,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floater View Post
Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.
I've never heard that. Do you have a cite? [not being combative, just honestly curious.]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07 November 2008, 03:56 PM
Wintermute's Avatar
Wintermute Wintermute is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 6,535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Now, I don't know the background of this guy, but from the article thats the sound.

-MB
I do not get that from the article at all. I get from the article that he is trying to determine what there is differences in the carbon dating, and trying to determine what is the age of the shroud.
He has some science education to back him up, and I would wait for his research before making the decision that he has a biased agenda based on the article.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.