Trained in the scientific method, and using it daily.
So am I and so are the scientists who have been investigation the Shroud. You did not seem to show it because you kept harping on the already tested and discarded C14 challenges and IGNORING the tests that proved the tested sample was not similar at all to the main body of the Shroud. Garbage in, garbage out.
I notice you have not responded to my bridge analogy...
There are reasonable explanations of how it was done, explanations that have not been disproven; reasonable explanations, when available, trump magical ones.
Please provide these "reasonable explanations of how it was done" that meet all of the criteria established by the Shroud studies. Quite frankly, Orion, no one has been able to do it yet unless you count your hypothetical 14th Century artist.
posted on 04/16/2004 1:09:37 PM PDT
(This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
> IGNORING the tests that proved the tested sample was not similar at all to the main body of the Shroud
You have yet to provide evidence that the "patches" are so much as a day newer than the rest of the shroud.
> Quite frankly, Orion, no one has been able to do it yet unless you count your hypothetical 14th Century artist.
Might have something to do with the fact that aging something 700 years is a time-consuming process.
And I'll note that you have yet to provide a good explanation of why, 700 years ago when the shroud first amgically appeared, it was clear, but today, it is not. Why was it clear for 1300 years, then suddenly faded? The most reasonable explanation for this is... 700 years ago, it was *new*.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson