Replies

I've seen refutations of many of the points made in your post, particularly the claim that the shroud was painted. Additionally, the bishop objecting to the shroud's authenticity did so because it was attracting pilgrims to Turin, as opposed to his city. The web site referenced by the author of the article, American Humanist, is an interesting web site to say the least.

It declares itself as staunchly opposed to a belief in the supernatural, and includes lauds to Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Sanger Harris, Ted Turner, Faye Wattleton, Bill Baird, Oliver Stone, and assorted other people who can accurately be described as athiest nutballs. It's hardly an unbiased site. Thanks for playing, though.

I've seen refutations of many of the points made in your post, particularly the claim that the shroud was painted.

Of course you have.

The web site referenced by the author of the article, American Humanist, is an interesting web site to say the least. It declares itself as staunchly opposed to a belief in the supernatural, and includes lauds to Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Sanger Harris, Ted Turner, Faye Wattleton, Bill Baird, Oliver Stone, and assorted other people who can accurately be described as athiest nutballs.

So, of course, it *must* be wrong on scientific issues, right? Gosh, how could anyone argue with such unassailable logic. (Didn't anyone ever tell you that ad hominem is a fallacy?)

It's hardly an unbiased site.

Neither are the shroudie sites.

Thanks for playing, though.

You too.

Richard,

I, like you, hold no opinion one way or the other about the authenticity of the Shroud, itself, but the Shafersman article evidences the same sloppy and careless bilge that passes for "science" in most evolutionarilly-premised commentary characterized as it is by similar demonstrations of such pedestrian intellect.

Shafersman is too busy trying to be cute, smarmy, and contemptuous to even get the entire history of the artifact correct. His atheistic/agnostic underpinnings render useless his ability to think as a forensic scientist. Not only that though, as so often is the case, along comes the agnostic/atheistic evolutionary acolyte pasting pap like this into this FR thread as though it is evidence for anything more that sloppy forensics. The weaknesses in his position are many and as noted by many in other postings to this thread, his position has been soundly refuted.

Shafersman openly demonstrates his own dismal understanding of what constitutes valid, scientifically based forensic technique as it pertains to radiocarbon dating. He failed to obtain the readily available, published history of the Shroud. Had Shafersman’s research not been so lazy to start with he would have known that the Shroud was exposed to a significant fire in the building where the Shroud was kept in year 1532. Such an exposure only results in skewed, un-interpretatable data in the context of radiocarbon dating.

The blind fealty the guy pays to radiocarbon dating --- as do most evolutionists to this technique --- reveals the most gaping flaw in the technique itself and the inability of such testing to accurately estimate the age of anything older than maybe a few hundred years. The point is this: atmospheric and other physical conditions in which the sample resides must have remained essentially unchanged since the time the sample was generated in order for radiocarbon dating to have any level of accuracy.

Clearly in the case of the Shroud, radiometric carbon dating is useless. Shafersman’s and his sycophant’s intent, I suspect has more to do with their desire to cast doubt upon the fact of Christ’s resurrection, whether or not the event in anyway is evidenced by the Shroud.

Sadly, their rabid atheism/agnosticism colors their collective abilities to think scientifically. An evo will believe what he wants to believe and make up anything about a fossil he cares to, to promote his career or merely his intellectual, and most often godless self-satisfaction.

Witness the recent shame brought upon the gullible evo community when one of their own (von Zieten) perpetrated yet another evolutionary phony missing link fraud upon his bretheren. The “fossil” still stunk of morbid decay and was more obviously dated to no more than 250 years old, yet his supposed radiocarbon dating had placed the age of the “fossil” conveniently right where he needed it to be to fit his premise. Didn't stop the initial endorsements of the hallowed "peer-reviewed," process though did it? Of course, not, because it validated what they wanted to believe about von Zeiten's work. Peer review didn't expose him, however. von Zieten's fossil theft did.

von Zeiten's casual temptation to bias supposedly radio-metrically derived results without having them objectively questioned by the antropological community is likely the same cover that Shafersman believes his position enjoys. If anything can be said about the "peer-review" process, it has little to do with objective critique of evidence presented to support the position, so long as the evolution-speak dogma is sufficiently parroted.

So much for the value of radiometric dating --– of the Shroud --- or of anything else for that matter. Scientifically, it is a patently worthless dating technique.