Aggrad08 said:
Faithful Ag said:
Aggrad08 said:
Look up one of the other threads. It's a clear hoax. The first time it pops up in history it was identified as a hoax.
would you mind posting a link to said threads? I have spent a lot of time learning about the shroud and everything points to it being authentic. The so-called debunking it as a hoax has been roundly disproven.
I am genuinely interested in looking into your claims. I have a family member intrigued by the shroud from a scientific perspective and I'm praying this will lead him back into the arms of the church. I would like to be well prepared for whatever might be out there. Thanks!
You were on the thread and made no serious attempt at contradicting the evidence. The historical record and radiometric dating are utterly damning. The excuses for the radiomentric dating being contaminated don't hold up. The so called contamination just so happens to match the historical record perfectly and the church has been unwilling to retest the shroud since.
The latest on the Shroud of Turin - just in time for Good Friday and Easter | TexAgs
The latest on the Shroud of Turin - just in time for Good Friday and Easter - Page 2 | TexAgs
For those that don't want to go back I'll give a quick summary:
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/24/sorry-the-shroud-of-turin-is-definitely-a-hoax/
Even without the radiocarbon dating from three independent labs it's a very weak case.
There is no mention of the shroud whatsoever until the 14th century and in its first mention it's labeled a forgery by the local bishop and notes that the artist was identified (this just so happens to exactly match the radiocarbon dating).
Ignoring that it's an image of a roughly 6ft tall, long straight haired gothic European Jesus who would have really stood out in first century Palestine. And he just so happens to be covering his private bits in a way totally consistent with art and inconsistent with what the arms of a dead guy would do (you need to hold your elbows off the ground to put your hands like that).
Also the image is wrong, a 3-d image of a man wrapped in A shroud would look very different (see below)
I get the desire to have physical evidence, but this ain't it. I don't really see why this would effect your belief in the resurrection one way or another
Some proponents for the authenticity of the shroud have attempted to discount the radiocarbon dating result by claiming that the sample may represent a medieval "invisible" repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth] However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-c14.arch.ox.ac.uk-12][12][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Radiocarbon_Dating_pg_167-168-7][7][/url] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-R.A._Freer-Waters,_A.J.T._Jull_2010-8][8][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-freeinquiry1-9][9][/url] the bio-contamination hypothesis[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Gove_1990-11][11][/url] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-c14.arch.ox.ac.uk-12][12]
[/url]
Quote:
I haven't watched it but curious yalls thoughts, this is the first question I always have - how can a linen that was draped around a body produce the flat 2D image? (I know yall used the term 3D but it looks pretty flat to me) A draped cloth that obtained an imprint of the 3D object underneath, would be distorted when laid flat
Yes very much so, it would look like this:
Is that how Jesus would have done it? You and the other gods get around and decide how to do these things best so that it stands up to science? Tell me more…
You can't explain away any part of it in any convincing way.
My faith doesn't hinge on this in any way but you actively seem to want to harm people spiritually by attacking this when your data is no more compelling.
IF it is real. I think God chose to leave an image on that shroud and left it in the manner of his choosing.
Of which no one can replicate even today. Like many of the Mysteries today we can't explain God in nice clean human ways for the Athiests, Agnostics and the general hateful.
I'm sorry this hurts your feelings. Get behind me Satan.
Useful info from a Gemini query about contamination:
The "Chicken DNA" and Dinosaur Bones
The story about dinosaur fossils being contaminated by researchers eating chicken likely refers to the high-profile debate surrounding Dr. Mary Schweitzer's discovery of soft tissue and potential proteins in a T. rex femur.
The Conflict: In 2007, Schweitzer's team published findings suggesting they had found collagen sequences in a 68-million-year-old fossil. When they compared these sequences to modern animals, they found they most closely matched birdsspecifically chickens.
The Contamination Theory: Critics, including teams from the University of York and the University of Manchester, argued that the protein signatures were far too "fresh" to be millions of years old. They suggested the samples had been contaminated in the lab. One specific theory raised in scientific circles (and popularized in science journalism) was that the results were skewed by bird-related proteins or "laboratory dust." While the "chicken sandwich" version became a popular anecdote to illustrate how easily ancient DNA can be contaminated, the scientific argument was more broadly about bio-organic contamination from the modern environment or common laboratory reagents.
The Microplastics and Lab Gloves
This is a more recent and very specific example of "the observer affecting the observed." A notable study from the University of Michigan highlighted how the very tools meant to protect samples were actually ruining them.
The Discovery: Researchers found that standard nitrile and latex gloves used in laboratories were shedding particles. Specifically, they release tiny particles called stearates (used as lubricants in the glove manufacturing process) and fragments of the glove material itself.
The Impact: Because these particles are so small, they were being counted as "microplastics" in environmental samples (like water or soil). In some studies, the concentration of plastic from the scientists' own gloves was higher than the concentration in the actual environment they were studying.
The Solution: Many microplastic researchers now have to use specialized "clean room" protocols, including cotton or plastic-free clothing and specific types of non-shedding equipment, to ensure they aren't just measuring their own gear.
Both cases serve as a reminder of the "Lindy effect" in science: the more sensitive our equipment becomes, the harder it is to filter out the noise of our own presence.
I'm sure the shroud hasn't been through any contamination.
If you were legitimately knowledgeable about this you would be far more reserved about the human aspects and more interested in the seemingly miraculous aspects of it.
Making your claims either ignorant or potentially willfully harmful.
