Posted on 03/11/2005 8:12:13 AM PST by Swordmaker
In addition, not one of these scientists has made the scientific claim that the man on the Shroud is Jesus of Nazareth... they may come to that conclusion from the preponderance of the evidence, but not because there is a "Jesus Test" that can be applied and give conclusive, scientific evidence.
I wonder if human red blood cells can be identified from the Shroud after this much time?
Duh, I see it now.
the Shroud of Turin"By 2012 scientists will not have developed an explanation for how images on the Shroud of Turin came to be on the cloth -an explanation that satisfies all of the physical and chemical properties of the images and does not violate basic laws of physics."
prediction by Daniel R. Porter
The great philosopher of empirical skepticism, David Hume, some two hundred and fifty years ago, challenged very effectively (but never disproved) the possibilities of miracles when he wrote, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.” It could be that Hume’s skepticism is now being put to the test. The criteria, for now, suggest that it is a miracle by Hume's own standard. But that is so only because an explanation so far eludes scientists. I contend that an explanation will continue to elude scientists.
“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.”
That is one of the things that make the shroud so fascinating... if it IS a fraud, then the fraud itself is miraculous!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.