donnerkeil

You said I smugly condemned all Protestants, when in reality I only made a comment about some of them. Thank you for admitting that you were incorrect in your accusation.

Also, I never implied such a thing. I simply said that some Protestants twist Scripture. From the Catholic perspective, this is true.

All of which proves my point. Miracles are for believers. You are the one who was trying to prove the opposite by bible-thumping... not me.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: donnerkeil ]</p>

Toto

I think it is in the same holy scripture that tells us that "God helps those who help themselves."

Megatron

Sounds like something a 6-year-old says on a playground. Did you pick your nose? Did you? Come on now, spit it out. Did you, or did you not pick your nose?

Megatron

Yup, and from what I've been told, it's rather accurate.

But... then again... the christians are going to believe what they want to believe.

Even with the contamination, it may date back to 1000 AD, but either way it's still a farce.

donnerkeil

Ah yes, Zero Angel, and now I'm supposed to, after this little outburst, take lessons from you on maturity?



Regardless of your... umm... opinion, the fact is, ex-preacher over-stepped his bounds on my comments. I said some, he said I said all, and there is a huge difference.

Megatron

Regardless of where you get them, you obviously need some lessons.

"That little outburst" was just to portray your idiotic little whinge for what it really was.

Since you can't prove a point, you've resorted to whining and fingerpointing.

Don't worry, it's a typical theist defense. You aren't setting any kind of example that hasn't already been cast.

But don't expect to get away with it, as we've all seen it a million times before, and know how to call bullshit when we see it.

Regardless of your... umm... whining, the fact is, you've resorted to whining over semantics when you can't make a point.

There may be a difference, but your feeble attempts at discrediting someone over one small semantic error does not disprove his point.

Speaking of the point, what is yours, anyway?

Do you even have one?

donnerkeil

If I've done something to offend you Zero Angel, aside from being a theist, I am unaware of it.

Hence, why you've decided to attack me, is quite perplexing. If it's because I rained on your parade when I said that the verdict was still out on the shroud, that is kind of pathetic, especially because as a supposed "proponent of science" you would want to be sure that all potential avenues of study were conducted and the data analyzed. I mean, what better way of placing the final nail in the coffin of the theist arguments regarding the shroud than if you just do the darn science and be done with it. Rather than acting like a petulant child and resorting to insults and ad hominem when someone comes up with another potential hypothesis, just run the tests. In other words, put the science where your mouth is and let's settle it like any other rational thinkers would, eh?

If it's because I said the shroud should be of little consequence when trying to preach the Gospel because "miracles are for believers", I would expect you to be dancing in the streets. Either way though, I don't know why you're being such an ass.

Maybe you just evolved that way.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: donnerkeil ]</p>

Megatron

Well, we can start with baseless ad-hom attacks on maturity and go from there.

Being a theist discredits you, but does not offend me much.

This childish nonsense:

...doesn't even offend me.

However, it does annoy me to no end that you decide to make an ass of yourself in order to stick someone with semantics.

Lacking a significant backing for your stance (where's your source, eh? where are the studies? where's the evidence?), you instead choose to (in kindergarten fashion) make patronizing statements and throw cobblestones from your glass house.

I've decided to expose you, not attack you.

If you showed some sort of definitive evidence (even a link to a site which gives sources would do), then you might be taken seriously.

Makes sense, but somewhat irrelevant to the point.

If you want an ass, I'd suggest you look in the mirror.

If you make baseless assertions, then pick over semantics when called on it, without giving even the slightest bit of information to back your assertions, you will get called for your bullshit.

If you want someone to blame, again... look in the mirror.

Absolutely. My bullshit detector evolved too.... and it's beeping at you.

Megatron

Now, back to the point. Where is your source for the factor of weight/thread-width differential between the shroud with and without biofilm, and how much difference do you project it to make in the c14 dating tests?

What credibility do you have to make such projections within a reasonable margin of error?

Provide at least some sort of source, please.

Also, for the rest of the xians on the thread: What if, even with the biofilm removed, the noncontaminated pieces of the shroud only date back further back than originally tested, but still nowhere near ~30 AD (say, about 1000 AD as opposed to ~1350) and the shroud is again shown to be false?

What will be your stance? Will you attempt to justify it with another passage in regard to "miracles", or are you willing to accept that it is, and has always been, a fraud?

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Zero Angel ]</p>

donnerkeil

First of all, I make no claim as to what difference it will make. I simply said that it could significantly alter the results, and I don't seem to be the only person who thinks so either. In an article by US News, when asked about the potential for the bio-plastic to cause a problem in the C-14 dating method, Dr. Rove, one of the original people who tested the Shroud of Turin in 1988 stated that it could have a possible effect in altering the creation date of the shroud...
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/shroud.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/shroud.htm</a>

As far as my source for the 60% increase to the diameter of individual threads of the shroud, it was obtained in an article done in 1998 by Time Magazine.

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980420/cover1.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980420/cover1.html</a> (60% figure cited on page 4 of the article).

Since I am not an expert in C-14 date testing, I cannot make a "guess-timate" as to how much it will alter the test results. Garza-Valdes and Mattingly seem to think it could alter it significantly, and Gove seems to think it has some validity, but as I said before... they'll just have to do the tests to be sure.

I also realize that neither of the journals I cited are scientific, nor are they peer reviewed. Garza-Valdes and Mattingly did publish their concerns though here: L. Garza-Valdes et al., "A problematic source of organic contaminant of linen," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B:504-7, Amsterdam, ier, 1997. However, the fact that at least one researcher from the original C-14 dating (Gove) thinks that it is a plausible explanation at least warrants further consideration.

What do you mean what "credibility" do I have? Do I need to be Gove incognito for my comments to carry some weight? As I have already said, the concerns of Garza-Valdes and Mattingly have gone unpublished, but have been considered as valid by at least one of the C-14 test conductors. That should warrant at least a re-test no? At least the Vatican thought so, and so from what I last read, they were willing to issue more pieces of the Shroud of Turin for further examination.

Am I allowed to answer? I'd say "big whoop" so it's a nice piece of art. My life and my faith do not revolve around the Shroud of Turin. Never have, never will... but let us say it DOES date from around ~30 AD, what would YOUR reaction be?

If for no other reason, I'd love to shove the ~30 AD dating in your face, and see how you reacted... or rather, watch your excuses start to fly. I have no doubt that you'd come up with a few excuses as to why the Shroud should not be considered authentic even though it was found to have an AD 30 dating.

Like I said before and will say again, atheists will not be converted by showing them miracles, and if it does, it is the rare exception in my opinion. Which is why I never use the Shroud of Turin as an evangelization tool.

But in either case, I'd be interested to see the re-test of the results and let the chips fall where they may.