The liberals in that thread have already read it. The fact that there are more of you so you can yell louder doesn't make you correct, ya know.
I'm not highly skeptical. Nor do I take science as 100% irrefutable proof, as people in this thread do. These people reproducing the shroud doesn't "disprove" anything. The fact that they are saying it "100% does prove it was a fake" is what I had a problem with. It was hyperbole. Tell me exactly what in the above statement you disagree with. TIA.
When people adopt religion as a substitute (rather than a complement) for science, history and reason, it's absolutely necessary.
And the liberal bandwagon needs to knock it the **** off with the personal insults as ammunition. Seriously, if you disagree with what I say, so be it. Explain why.
lol. Let us know how the search for the "definitive" answer to 10/3 goes, fatty. The conspiratorial liberal science community eagerly awaits your conclusions.
First of all, the scientist is wrong to say that. His project was to prove that the technique can be reproduced. Obviously, the next step is to think that if it can be reproduced it could be a fake, but the shroud was not even worked on so nothing could be that empirical. Second, your initial position was against the funding of the research, not the claims of proving the shroud fake. The SoT is a physical, historical artifact. I think the more we learn about it the better, at least for educational purposes. If it can be proven to be a fake it doesn't diminish it's historicity in my mind. As the Vatican said, whatever it is, it can be considered religious in nature and should be enjoyed for that.
A bit contradictory, no? You don't totally believe the science, but you're not skeptical? Perhaps that's where the auspicious word "highly" comes into play, I guess -- you can flexibly define how skeptical you are just for arguments sake. That's fine, whatever. My personal stance on all of this science (proving the Shroud of Turin is fake, Big Bang Theory, etc.) is that it's the best available explanation that has the most evidence to support it. It's not that I'm 100% pro-scientific explanation, it's that the explanations make more sense and have actual, tangible scientific evidence to support it. Something like the Big Bang Theory can't be 100% supported, of course. However, research showing that the Shroud of Turin could be reproduced with medieval materials after it's been carbon dated to be created around that era is pretty damning of it... not that I ever believed it was anything meaningful anyway.
I thought this was established years ago - the fact that the shroud dates from the Middle Ages. Saw a documentary and it also said that any shroud used at the time would have been a bunch of strips of cloth instead (like a mummy).
I agree with you on these points. I'm also annoyed by the FFB-drama-queen derails, which ironically, seem to begin with self-fulfilling prophecies. If FFB's first post in this thread had my handle next to it instead of his, it'd have had almost no reaction and a civil discourse would have continued. SamFisher has a way of making threads to be about his frenemy of the day.
Science is the pursuit of facts, but Science is never afraid of being questioned and dissected for truth. Now as for religion...well......it is not about finding the truth, it is about finding your faith. DD
as I said before, the Fatty show seems to roll on in all of its thread hijacking glory regardless of any observations I may make. If you think I'm the proximate cause of 3+ pages of all things FattyFat you're giving me far too much credit. I only had 2 posts in this thread before this one.
is the university of pavia anywhere close to turin? it not than i think this entire argument is moot.
I love a good Fatty curb stomp. Perfect way to start the week. Jim, for the record, you are my favorite poster ever.
