Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false

Originally posted by tomtom232
I thought things like the shroud of turin were supposed to transfer the original image onto anything the image was touched to... so we can have evidence either way. If it does do this then that is pretty convinincing. However, it probably doesn't or else it would be the biggest story in the world.

No. You have a wrong understanding. The Shroud of Turin represents the image of Christ that was supernaturally transferred to His burial linen at the ressurection. It is not an image made by hands. The Scientific team investigating the Shroud have determined that there is no known way for man to reproduce all the characteristics of the image as shown on the Shroud of Turin.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. You have a wrong understanding. The Shroud of Turin represents the image of Christ that was supernaturally transferred to His burial linen at the ressurection. It is not an image made by hands. The Scientific team investigating the Shroud have determined that there is no known way for man to reproduce all the characteristics of the image as shown on the Shroud of Turin.

You are hallucinating as usual.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. You have a wrong understanding. The Shroud of Turin represents the image of Christ that was supernaturally transferred to His burial linen at the ressurection. It is not an image made by hands. The Scientific team investigating the Shroud have determined that there is no known way for man to reproduce all the characteristics of the image as shown on the Shroud of Turin.

It therefore cannot be used as scientific evidence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It therefore cannot be used as scientific evidence.

Why? Is it because it defies complete scientific explanation from the scientist?
Why not use that part that can be explained by the scientist as scientific evidence and the part that can not be explained by the scientist as supernatural evidence?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why? Is it because it defies complete scientific explanation from the scientist?
Why not use that part that can be explained by the scientist as scientific evidence and the part that can not be explained by the scientist as supernatural evidence?

Because you are full of shyte, it is not supernatural for one thing. And for another you are as usual, full of shyte.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Because you are full of shyte, it is not supernatural for one thing. And for another you are as usual, full of shyte.

That is not true. I take regular dumps and don't allow myself to get full of shyte. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is not true. I take regular dumps and don't allow myself to get full of shyte. 😏

I think he means your head is full of crap. Dont worry, you're not alone.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah so you keep harping on about the shroud like a broken record for our benefit.

Well let me clear something up.

As you rightly say, those that don't need evidence to believe don't and wont care about the shroud being the right age either way.

Those that do care about evidence [b]will also not care about how old the shroud is either way

...[text shortened]... is going to care either.




So why do you keep posting about it?

Whats the point?[/b]

Honestly, even if someone came down from the sky today and parted the Red Sea and turned water into wine before my very eyes, I would conclude that he was an extraterrestrial being possessing extremely advanced technology. As an explanation it would still be immeasurably simpler than resorting to the supernatural.