Chemical & Mechanical Not destructive tests Dated Turin Shroud in 1st Century.

a reply to: The angel of light

If your a scientist i imagine you would know the difference between "there is people" and "there are people" unless English is not your first language of course.

I mean even i know that, and im nothing more than a Dyslexic Electrician.

Buddy how can you just not admit that there "is" no definitive proof that the article in question came from the 1st century.

Fact is the general consensus surrounding the shroud suggests it came from around the 14th century, scientific studies and all.

a reply to: The angel of light

Anyway 1988 testing is just one of the two performed on fibers of the Shroud, the one carried out in California 1982 contradicts completely those results.

Hang on a minute....

You've been moaning and moaning about how 30 year old testing is wrong and you bring up an OLDER test (yet don't link to it)?

That's hypocrisy at it's finest.

a reply to: The angel of light


See the issue of the Shroud of Turin could realistically be interpreted as a "diagnostic dilemma."


And your insistence that those of us who argue with you more or less is in effect an effort to suppress that issue, which is what Science and Technology is in reality all about.

Its how Science rolls in the relevant 80"s vernacular.

a reply to: The angel of light

Pls read

New Testing dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ

That was from 2013.

This link (that I've posted multiple times) is dated 2015.

a reply to: andy06shake

This is just for the readers that are following the thread from abroad, I found shocking that somebody came here to suggest that the meridian of science pass exactly through the backyard of his house, evidently anybody of any nationality is welcome to post , in particular people in science professions.

Now, for you I can say that again I find funny all these myriad of personal attacks against me, it is absurd to be called hypocritical and other terrible adjectives just because I decided to open a discussion on this research papers of the University of Padua, or because I don't get on my knees and adore the 1988 C14 data as the ultimate word about the Shroud.

This thread is not about my personal research, it is about papers that come from Italian scientists, so I don't even grasp what is the sense in to try to discredit me?

Finally, although this is not a Grammar forum it is grammatically correct to use the word People as singular to denote a group that shares characteristics or behavior.

Please check:

www.quora.com...

No more comments from my side about that, it is really not relevant for the discussion.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Now, for you I can say that again I find funny all these myriad of personal attacks against me, it is absurd to be called hypocritical and other terrible adjectives just because I decided to open a discussion on this research papers of the University of Padua, or because I don't bend on my knees andadore the 1988 C14 data as the ultimate word about the Shroud.

Realistically speaking no one really cares if you disagree or not and as to suggesting that there is this expectation from your
point of view changing that is irrelevant.

This is a discourse like it or not.

As to the extent the moderators allow it well that is their preview not ours.

As far as your comments upon "Adoration" ?

Could you be suggesting that Jesus of Nazareth was Caucasian do to some divine right?

Otherwise he would have been a man born to parents of African decent and from a statistical perspective its like 100%.

a reply to: The angel of light

Depends what you classify as a personal attack.

Stating the obvious is just that.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, i would however call in to question your thoughts on a religious artifact more than lightly created centuries after the supposed Crucifixion in an attempt to bolster the religion of Christianity around the world.

As to my questioning of your Grammar, well people of a scientific nature generally know how to word things, especially if they are writing papers.

Simple fact is that it lends credence to there subject matter, thats just the world in which we live today.

Not saying there are not exceptions, but it is what it is.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Please, is this your way to introduce also mockery here in the discussion?:

You have spent uncountable replies arguing that this is a science forum and trying to accuse me of to bring religion discussion here, something that of course is false because I have posted an impressive amount of scientific papers and links here, just to Now come and bring

Mark Goodacre,

who is professor of New Testament and Christian origins in the Department of Religious Studies at Duke University to lecture us about what is Scientifically Correct or Not in the study of this Historic burial element?

Excuse me, but this person with all the respect that his credentials deserve is not minimally qualified to talk about a C14 accuracy or bias at all,
he is not Physicist, he is not Chemist, he is not Archaeologist.

The most that Dr Goodacre can do is to decide to whom trust in the dating of the Shroud, that is what he has decided to do, he has accepted 1988 C14 and Ignored 1982 C14, that is his right, but he is no authority neither to defend or question any of them.

He could lecture us in Theology perhaps but that is all his scope on this topic.

No more comments from my side about this.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Ah. So it's ok for you to post about religion as it confirms your "the shroud is real!", but as soon as someone else does it it doesn't count?

It's not my fault that your believe the shroud (a religious item) is real when it's been SCIENTIFICALLY dated to around the 1300s.

But you'll ignore EVERYTHING if the date isn't for around the time some dude that may or may not have existed in about 100ad.

a reply to: The angel of light

Look at it this way, say the shroud was to be unequivocally proven to be a fake tomorrow. Would that in anyway call in to question the existence of Christ anymore than all the rest of the of the lack of historical evidence pertaining to his existence?

No!

So how would that make you feel, exactly the same i imagine.

a reply to: The angel of light

Keep adding stuff and I'll keep replying with a new post.

If you bother to read THIS LINK you would see it's not about the science part of the testing. It's about which parts of the shroud were used for the testing. It counters your "they used a newer part" nonesense.

Also, you say this...

but he is no authority neither to defend or question any of
them.

You mean like you're doing in favour of the tests you posted in this thread? I guess that means we should ignore you as you have no authority to defend or question any of it.

a reply to: TerryDon79

To be fair proving it's genuine should be rather simple, just burn the thing.

If it's of divine providence i'm sure our mere Human efforts to destroy such an object of divine heritage would prove to be futile.

Hence its authenticity would be proven beyond a doubt.................Or is that witches, i get confused.

Same crap different wrapping paper really.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well, if you use the "divine providence" argument, the shroud is a fake. C14 destroys something to measure the levels.

Shroud hoax confirmed!

That is a really Not scientific discussion, your posts are extremely weird considering that this is a forum of science, where the approach not only the topic must be scientific.

To come here and discuss science with science is acceptable but to start to bring Theologians to try to debunk scientists or propose upside down rituals of mambo jambo interpretations of religion is irresponsible, it lacks of seriousness and decorum at all.

Dr Giulio Fanti is faculty member of the Mechanical Engineering department of the Padua University, he is a serious scientist and his studies on this problem deserve a respectful attention from the scientific community.

"the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years."

Here an interview with him:
theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: TerryDon79

Or, or, Jebus is screwing with the C14 results form behind the mythical curtain, and to be honest rather dated, faded and shabby curtain, that is kingdom of heaven and the Christian faith(Plus all the rest i don't discriminate like some deity's(people) do).

To be honest, you would think he had something better to do with our universe, guess all that omnipotence and predestination is not all its cracked up to be, gets boring after a fashion, hence the interest in us mere mortals.

a reply to: The angel of light

Hey i pride myself on being weird my friend, it's kind of my bag.

And like i said im not a scientist, just a humble Electrician. We do weird rather eloquently.

To be honest i kind of envy your faith, to believe in something as whole heartily as you lot(Christians) ether requires great strength of belief or complete and utter disregard for the facts that surround us.

Ether way it's a skill set and peace of mind i will never understand.

Answer the question i asked you earlier on, how do you feel regarding the conundrum of freewill versus predestination given there diametric opposition to one another?

Humor me, i actually quite value your response.

a reply to: The angel of light

Those dates mean squat as the shroud has been contaminated beyond testing by your shroud society.

But you'd know that if you actually researched stuff and read other people's links.

a reply to: andy06shake

Sounds plausible lol.

jebus - I wonder what to do today?
god - I know what I'm doing. I'm going to make people think the planet, and everything on it, is older than it is!
satan - and they call ME evil?

a reply to: The angel of light


If you consider the idea that gravity as humans comprehend it is currently acknowledged as merely a theoretical presumption?

What do you think a appropriate response is to the idea that humans emit photons when due to some apparent mutation, due to a Deity being the Father, allows for that?

Beyond of course what I have offered.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Aye well they say the devil is always in the detail, as is the satire.

It's all good................or bad..............wait those are human constructs if im not mistaken, rather beneath any truly omnipotent being.

Lets just say that Humanities capacity for evil pails in comparison to the mythical semi-anthropomorphised entities associated with the Christian faith.