Evidence for God from Science

I know this has been going back and forth a little, but the latest information on the shroud is that it is, well, inexplicable.

There has been no scientific explanation for how the image got on the shroud, and lately, a 3-d map of the shroud was also made, something that cannot be replicated from a layer so thin.

Thoughts?

I'm not even sure if it's real, a fabrication or a replica of the original.

The original is still around, and if it is fake, no-one has figured out how it was done. Of course we have the normal range of debate from utter skeptic to utter believer on this.

I've never even heard the first arguments on the issue, so I'm utterly clueless. I keep telling myself I need to find out the different positions and their evidences. Any good places to start?

I would start at http://www.shroudstory.com. It has the most extensive info on the web around the subject, including skeptic articles.

Ah, gracias

Whats the Shroud of Turin?
I've never heard of it

The original is still around, and if it is fake, no-one has figured out how it was done.

Well this is not exact.
People from cicap claim to be able to make it using middle age techniques.

Not to mention that it was clearly and bejond any reasonable doubt dated to about 1300 just before it appeared in historical files.
What a coincidence, isn't it?

So whatever technique was used it was done on a middle age shroud.
Notice also that when Constantinopoli was sieged they took a number of relics away. After ten years all relics were back in Constantinopolidespite never returned by European kings. It is obvious they sistematicaly make them.

As a general comment, let me remark that these are most of the few certain things known about the shroud. People involved in the research about the subject are often so motivated that one doesn't know who to believe.

Ipazia, Ipazia...

If you take a look at the link provided, you'll see valid reasons why these people believe such dating techniques were wrong:

The problem is called material intrusion. It is an uncommon problem in some carbon 14 dating exercises. For instance, in dating peat bogs, which may be very old, the samples often contain miniscule roots from newer plants that grew in the peat. Sometimes the roots, having decomposed, are indistinguishable from the older peat. What is tested might simply be a mixture of old and new material leading to erroneous results. No one expected that material intrusion might be a problem with the Shroud of Turin. But it was. By some estimates, as much as 60 percent of the Shroud of Turin sample was new thread, the result of mending in the 16th century. This is sufficient to change the date of a 1st century shroud to the medieval date range arrived at by the carbon 14 dating.

Thus, there is reasonable doubt on the date; however, although I may be wrong, I'm of the opinion that the shroud isn't authentic anyway. My belief is based on what I perceive to be a lack of blood on the shroud, and the time it happened to be produced just seems soo late.

Kurieuo.

vvart wrote:Whats the Shroud of Turin?
I've never heard of it

What Jesus was apparently buried in.

Kurieuo.

K, I'm not vouching for its authenticity either, but there is quite a bit of blood on the shroud, which was confirmed to be human blood. If the victim did in fact die from Roman crucifixtion, I wonder how much blood would have been lost in that process, and was there not some sort of enbalming before being wrapped in a burial cloth?

Good thing our religion does not depend on a piece of cloth

August wrote:there is quite a bit of blood on the shroud, which was
confirmed to be human blood.

True, but it doesn't look like much considering it is said that Jesus' actual ribs would have been showing after his lashings, and the crown of thorns, etc. The images just looks too nice and neat.

Here's some information I read about the blood aspect:
<blockquote>The shroud, however, has many defenders who believe they have demonstrated that the cloth is not a forgery, dates from the time of Christ, is of miraculous origin, etc. It is claimed that there is type AB blood on the shroud. Skeptics deny it. Blood has not been identified on the shroud directly, but it has been identified on sticky tape that was used to lift fibrils from the shroud. Dried, aged blood is black. The stains on the shroud are red. Forensic tests on the red stuff have identified it as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint. Other tests by Adler and Heller have identified it as blood.* If it is blood, it could be the blood of some 14th century person. It could be the blood of someone wrapped in the shroud, or the blood of the creator of the shroud, or of anyone who has ever handled the shroud, or of anyone who handled the sticky tape. But even if there were blood on the shroud, that would have no bearing on the age of the shroud or on its authenticity.

&#151;http://skepdic.com/shroud.html&#151;</blockquote>It's not sealed either way, but I strongly doubt the shrouds authenticity.

August wrote:Good thing our religion does not depend on a piece of cloth

I agree, and personally think a much greater and stronger case can be made for Christ and his resurrection based on the historical evidence.

Kurieuo.

Ipazia, Ipazia...

I live in Torino, my office is next door to the office of a scientist studing the srhoud.
I'm well aware of what they say about dating.
The fact is that it is ridicolous.
Do you think dating labs are stupid? They looked for material intrusion and they find none.
I also wonder why material intrusion did not apply to mummies as well, which are correctly dated.
Not to mention that the amount of material needed to make it appear 1300 years younger than it is, is ridiculously high (about half of the mass).

Anyway, I don't want to break your kind invitation to keep out of the site... I just wanted to offer my special experience about the Shroud being it in my homeplace.

Bye

mummies are usually air sealed in desert regions where plants don't really grow. I highly doubt you could get any plants mixed in with their shroud. The shroud of turin has been all over the place on the other hand.

August wrote:K, I'm not vouching for its authenticity either, but there is quite a bit of blood on the shroud, which was confirmed to be human blood. If the victim did in fact die from Roman crucifixtion, I wonder how much blood would have been lost in that process, and was there not some sort of enbalming before being wrapped in a burial cloth?

Good thing our religion does not depend on a piece of cloth

Never heard of their being blood on it before