[orionblamblam]

> You are ignoring the science.

No. My only problem here is that I'm debating a zealot.

> You are ignoring the fact that the image is superficial to
the outer crowns on the outmost fibers of the cloth faces. In other word capillary action will not work

Sorry, wrong. Capillary action will do this quite nicely. Fluids will often traverse cloth, leaving a dark stain at the outer extent, and little to no stain over the areas they've covered in gettign there. Now, if you have a stained cloth produced in the 1300's, and then allowed to age for 650 years... it's easy to see how the fainter areas in the interior will get even fainter, leaving only the exterior areas to have any visibility whatsoever.

Ergo: dye not on the interior =/ miracle.

And of course, if the dye or paint or stain or egg whites or whatever were not applied thickly, then it's again easy to see why the interior would not be stained, but just the exterior. And as for the "other" face...it's astonishingly easy to see two entirely amterialistic reasons for it to be there, as well, especially if it's seen via image processing.

>Any shrouds that were used for a few would have decomposed in the tomb unless the tomb was empty.

Huh. Then, how do we even know that this is an accurate burial shroud, and not just a fourteenth century beach towel? If all burial shrouds except for those magical few used in cases of resurection have decomposed... we'd have mighty few burial shoruds, wouldn't we? And if this one is the only one... how do you know it is what it's said to be?

> I am wasting my time replying to you. But it is fun.

No doubt it is. I'm sure you're using this as an excercise in your cutting-and-pasting skills.

[Swordmaker]

No. My only problem here is that I'm debating a zealot.

No, the only problem here is that both Shroudie and I are debating a Zealot for atheism (the belief that God does not exist is just as much of an unprovable as that he does) who also does not know history or the scientific method.

You displayed your ignorance when you claimed in an earlier post:

"Why? If this shroud is, as it's history suggests, a painting done for the Pope around 1357 . . ."

and you repeated this ignorance of history later when you said:

"Not when the fake is to be delivered to the Pope. And not in an age when people such as Da Vinci were running around creating an artistic Rennaissance, and tryign to mess with the system... ".

These claims are false. They are UNTRUE. The Shroud was not a "painting done for the Pope" as the Pope did not even become involved in the dispute until 37 years after the first exposition of the Shroud in Lirey. In fact, according to the record, the first Pope to even SEE the shroud was Pope Pius VII who saw the Shroud when he was being forced to travel to Paris to crown Napoleaon in 1804!

As to the absurd inclusion of Leonardo Da Vinci in the debate, Leonardo was born 102 years AFTER the first Lirey exposition. This would be akin to arguing that Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in forming the United Nations, or that JFK (the first one, not the soon to be DemocRat candidate) was responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation. Incidentally, there is no evidence that Da Vinci ever tried to "mess with the system" except in some popular fiction books and another work of fiction by Picknett and Prince.

You expound on things you DO NOT KNOW ABOUT. You claim as FACT things that are not true. You ignore proven facts. You cite historical evidence that exists only in your own mind.

Your mind is closed. You are an atheistic Zealot. I agree with Shroudie, you are a waste of our time.