I am much smarter than you and my one month is worth more than your 15 years. I will prove it.
Do you agree with Raymond N. Rogers theory?, "Rogers suspected contamination and, more important, reported that threads from the 1988 samples contain no vanillin, a compound in flax that gradually disappears. By his calculations, the shroud is 1,300 to 3,000 years old. Though it's possible the cloth dates from Jesus' lifetime, Rogers noted, actual connection to Jesus can never be proven."
Here's what you are having a problem with ~ the sheer mass and volume of representative works from the First Century AD.
Ain't much there.
In fact, there's so little of it they are now reduced to scouring the bottom of an Egyptian public latrine because it was found to contain parchment text from an ancient Torah.
Going back much futher, to 3000 years, our manuscript remains are really, really slim.
It's possible such an item (an ancient Torah of an unknown Jewish sect) served as a source for much of the Koran. You'd have to have special conditions to keep it in shape for early Medieval Damascene scribes to work with it ~ e.g. a very dry cave near Mecca ~ kind of what Mohammad said ~
Other than that everything is carved in stone or mud.
Ancient cloth is also in short supply.
This latest item, pulling apart a thread of hand twilled cloth and finding it separate into both cotton and linen, is interesting. Tell you a lot about how impoverished it was in the Middle Ages ~ lot of folks around knew how to do invisible reweaving to repair cloth. We, currently, are in short supply of such skilled folks. Almost a forgotten art. However, I'm old enough to remember dry cleaners with the sign "invisible reweaving" ~ but barely.
BTW, you can read this little discovery as two things ~ 1) as a repair, and 2) something done by someone willing to ignore ancient Jewish prohibitions on mixing two types of cloth.
That, at least, dates the repair to long after Jesus' day.
Thus spake Biden.
Though it's possible the cloth dates from Jesus' lifetime, Rogers noted, actual connection to Jesus can never be proven.
OK, great. Let's say it isn't the burial shroud of Jesus, thereby removing the temptation to invoke, or fear of invoking, the supernatural.
What do the circumstances happen to be that lead to the creation of the image of a dead body in juxtaposition to linen? What is the physical mechanism? What specific features can be explained by this mechanism?
Analysis, son, analysis. This is a unique artifact, and therefore scientifically interesting on its own merits, regardless of any religious association.
Cheers!
Don't even bother, dascallie. Arguing with an anti-theist is like getting into a battle of wits with an idiot. The idiot drags you down to their level and beats you with experience.