Put on your waders. The water isn’t deep here but you will need to do some sloshing through a bit of Isaac Asimov to see the point. So, according to Davor Aslanovski in his blog Deum Videre, Ian Wilson is an exoheretic. The list of scholars who are taken in, says Davor, is extensive:
‘Of all the exoheretics, Velikovsky has come closest to discomfiting the science he has attacked, and has most successfully forced science to take him seriously. (Wilson has not exactly discomfited the world of Late Antique and Byzantine studies, but his heresy has been accepted by a number of scholars – Pierluigi Baima Bollone, Daniel Raffard de Brienne, Werner Bulst, Massimo Centini, Linda Cooper, Karlheimer Dietz, Maurus Green, Mark Guscin, Robert Drews, Andre-Marie Dubarle, Barbara Frale, Emanuela Marinelli, Heinrich Pfeiffer, Ilaria Ramelli, Daniel Scavone, Maria Grazia Siliato, Eugene Csocsan de Várallja, Gino Zaninotto, Thomas de Wesselow. And, as opposed to the largely forgotten Velikovskianism, this is still alive and kicking.) Why is that? Well -
Heresy? “ . . . it is a heresy nevertheless. . . . “
Wilson is one of those who choose to believe that the undeniably enigmatic Turin Shroud bears a miraculously created image of Jesus Christ. And this may very well be right. But there is no evidence for it. To begin with, the relic has no known history prior to the 14th century. And there is no mention of an image-bearing cloth anywhere in the New Testament, the Early Christian (whether orthodox or heretical) writings, or any other source before the appearance of the highly unreliable Abgar legends. And even in the latter the cloth is not a 14-foot burial shroud, bearing an image with the marks of the Passion. But what if…? What if this is the image of Our Lord Jesus Christ? How can one not wonder? Herein lies the major difference between every other scientific heresy and what we have here. We are not dealing with just a scientific heresy – a veritable pseudoscience has been created. Sindonology. The study of one single relic, isolated from everything else, conducted outside the world of orthodox academia, and often with deep disrespect and distrust for what the orthodox scientists have to say. And when any orthodox scientist reads the endless on-line discussions of these ‘sindonologists’, the papers presented at their conferences, and the occasional publications that they produce, he will invariably notice one thing: these people veritably despise the academic world. And this warrants some attention and an attempt to understand why this is so. I propose this answer: The average ‘sindonologist’ has come to the (accurate) conclusion that the image in the Shroud is like no other in the history of human art, and that it, at least for the time being, escapes scientific explanation; he has, through various experiences in his life, become fed up (and rightly so) with the skepticism, rationalism, agnosticism, and the general disbelief that permeate the academic world today; he has done some research and has found a number of things in various scientific disciplines (in at least some of which he has no expertise of his own) that could conceivably be used to prove that the relic is authentic; he has most probably always had a healthy passion for mysteries; and he is, more often than not, passionate about his religion as well. Through a combination of these factors, he continues to been drawn to this enigmatic object. He is often aware that experts have refuted some of his claims, but refuses to change his mind – because these experts are generally not very inspiring to him. Their skepticism, rationalism, and agnosticism, mentioned above, is in fact repulsive to him, and, to a great degree in deliberate opposition to them, he chooses to believe. He chooses a wonderfully mysterious fantasy over the dreary, cheerless reality. And who can possibly blame him? I certainly don’t. But it is a heresy nevertheless. And, as such, it can teach us a lot.)
What is the point of writing something like this, Colin Berry? To be nasty?
Why do you ignore the new science, Mr.Rolfe? Does it not fit with your preconceptions, the ones you were so keen to have carved on tablets of zone (sic maybe) when you pestered the conference participants at Valencia to subscribe to your list of largely dud or redundant “consensus” points.
Science by consensus? No thanks. I prefer science by free unfettered enquiry, science by thinking out of the box. That’s why I am a published scientist and why you are a film producer, Mr. Rolfe, the difference being that I have no desire to wear a second hat as a film producer, while you … oh never mind.
This follows your sometimes flippant remarks on the seven image characteristics in the Dawkins Challenge. Look, I have taken issue with these and with the challenge. We should do so when merited. But why the flippancy like, “I thought real bodies, living or dead, had sides.”
I know, David has banned some of your comments on his site. Can you blame him?
Let’s look at your responses (in italics):
1. The body image is created by molecular change of linen fibres. There are also bloodstains. There is no body image beneath the bloodstains. (For the avoidance of doubt, this characteristic does not exclude the possibility that the molecular change may have taken place in an impurity layer at the linen surface).
Yes, there is probably molecular change of linen fibres. That’s if one excludes Rogers’ Occam’s Razor blunting hypothesis, the one that posits a chemical reaction between putrefaction vapours and surface impurities. It was the initial omission of that and the criticism that followed that occasioned Rolfe’s later addition in italics. Shame it makes the opening statement self-contradictory.
There’s a simpler name for the molecular change in the linen fibres. It is called a scorch. It is not necessarily in the cellulose. It is more likely to be in the hemicelluloses of the primary cell wall.
There are no proven bloodstains, or at any rate ORIGINAL bloodstains. There may be pigmented stains that look like blood (strange that they are eternally red, differ from the spectrum of known porphyrins, lack potassium etc but never mind, let’s not get hung up on the geekish detail).
The original real or look-alike “bloodstains” may have later been touched up with blood, blood serum or fake blood. That’s a bit more complicated than saying “bloodstains”. But then science, real science, does tend be more complicated than the made- for-TV variety.
2 The body image does not penetrate below the surface fibres. The body image is not visible when illuminated by transmitted light. The bloodstains are.
Yes, the body image is superficial, It is called a scorch. Scorches tend to be superficial What bloodstains? Proof positive please.
3 The body image varies in intensity that correlates to expected cloth-body distances had the cloth covered a body.
Where is the proof that the cloth was ever draped over a real body? Ever heard the expression “begging the question”? (Original meaning, that is, not to be confused with “inviting the question”)
4 The sides of the body are not represented even where blood has transferred to the cloth and between the head images.
Yes, we have no side image. That means there was no imaging of the sides. That’s because only the frontal and dorsal sides were imaged. Does that sound like a real body was imaged? I thought real bodies, living or dead, had sides.
5 The resolution of the image is sufficient to resolve body features of a few millimetres.
6 There are no outlines or directionality to the body image within the plane of the cloth.
Sounds like a thermal imprint if you ask me, produced by pressing cloth against a heated template. It’s what cattle ranchers call a brand (produced by pressing a heated template, aka branding iron, against cattle hide). Ever heard of transferable skills?
7 The body image has the visual characteristics of a photographic negative. That is, normal light and dark areas are reversed.
Again, it’s what cattle ranchers call a brand.
Fancy? Is rudeness a substitute for substance?
An open letter to Richard Dawkins
29th March 2012
Dear Richard Dawkins
It is really not sufficient to dismiss the Shroud, as you do, on the basis of a C14 test from a single and badly selected sample area. Are you really saying that C14 has never made a mistake? Archaeologists frequently go back to retest something when other data conflicts. That has been impossible with the Shroud.
In your Shroud blog you argue, rightly in my view, that it is not enough for Christian apologists to weigh faith heavier than facts. After all, Christianity is based on a historical figure. The Shroud of Turin is a much-studied tangible object and it is a very significant fact that its unique image – so far – remains unfathomable. But that could be about to change if you, with the weight of your formidable foundation behind you, choose to accept this challenge.
When Professor Hall, Head of the Oxford Radio Carbon Unit announced the C14 result he was asked for his explanation for the Shroud. He said: “Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it”. This sounded a bit glib at the time and now, over twenty years on, it is beginning to sound a little hollow. No one has yet been able to show how it might have been “faked up”.
Accepting this challenge would appear to be consistent with your foundation’s mission. Does it not represent a wonderful educational opportunity to investigate what some have suggested could only have been the work of a Leonardo Da Vinci? To make the decision easier for you we will donate the £20,000 to your foundation if you simply accept the challenge and follow it through to some kind of conclusion. The public can make up their own minds about the result.*
The challenge then, if you choose to accept it, is to explain how the Shroud and its image might have come into existence. You will find a list of the most significant image characteristics here. If you cannot pin it down then, in all conscience, you should, at least, give it the appropriate respect as an enigma. If you can explain it then this site’s title becomes a misnomer and you will have solved a great mystery. Everyone would like to see this matter resolved. Could you be the one to do it?
With all good wishes
* This £20,000 donation is not made possible because championing the possible authenticity of the Shroud is well funded or lucrative operation – far from it – but because your acceptance would trigger a commission for a documentary along the lines of our 2008 BBC2 film with Rageh Omaar. If you wish, you could nominate an executive producer.
As readers of this blog know, Yannick Clément disputes many of Ian Wilson’s historical conclusions. Yannick has written an article and asked me to post it here (in PDF form). Enjoy, think about it and offer your comments. I know: much as been said about this already. But Yannick has pulled it together into this one article with some newly organized material. It warrants our attention,
A recent poll showed that almost one in three young Americans doubt God exists.
The poll, conducted in April by the Pew Research Center, showed that 31 percent of respondents under the age of 30 have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 9 percent of those polled who were 65 or older.
When asked to evaluate the statement, "I never doubted the existence of god," 18 percent of all respondents said that they mostly or completely disagreed.
But Fox News religion contributor Fr. Jonathan Morris had a different take on the numbers. Morris, a Catholic priest from the Archdiocese of New York, said that having doubt doesn’t necessarily mean that young people don’t believe in God.
He included himself and Mother Teresa among the ranks of people who have had doubt about their faith, recalling that the famous nun’s diaries were "full of spiritual conflict." Morris also said that questioning one’s faith could be a positive thing leading to a mature acceptance of their beliefs.
However, as CNN pointed out, the new numbers constitute a 15 percent drop in certainty over the past 5 years. A 2007 Pew poll found 83 percent of those in the "Millennial" generation never doubted the existence of God.
This means young people are expressing doubts about God more now than at any time since Pew started asking the question on its American Values Survey a decade ago.
Additionally, 25 percent of Millennials identified as "religiously unaffiliated."
Worldwide, the Catholic Church is facing a shortage of priests, which the Vatican recently blamed on secularism, sexual abuse scandals and parents’ ambition for their children.
Jerry Coyne, one of America’s leading Atheists, ponders the question, Can science test the supernatural? in his blog named after his best selling book, Why Evolution Is True::
In other words, we can provisionally accept that there is no god because we don’t see the kind of evidence that we should see if god were present (answered prayers, confirmable miracles at Lourdes, and so on), and we see things that we don’t expect if there were a loving, omnipotent, and omniscient God (the most obvious, of course, is the presence of undeserved evil).
- Indeed, if miracles, answered prayers, and regrown limbs were seen, the faithful would trumpet this as evidence for God, and of course many believers are always looking (in vain) for such evidence, viz. the search for the remnants of Noah’s Ark, the supposed authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the ludicrous attempts of creationists to verify that the Grand Canyon was caused by the flood. In truth, believers want, need, and look for for evidence for their faith. But in the end, that evidence always comes down to a kind of “knowledge” that is neither confirmable nor convincing: revelation.
- This all means that, contrary to the National Academies of Science, Judge Jones, the National Center for Science Education, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the idea of God and the supernatural are scientific (i.e., empirically testable) hypotheses, at least in principle. Science can—and repeatedly has—tested the supernatural. Sure, one-off miracles in the past, like the resurrection of Jesus, can’t be tested directly, but we can assess them as more or less credible by applying Bayes’s theorem (indeed, that’s what Hume was really doing when he asked whether it is more likely that a miracle happened or that the person reporting one was mistaken, deluded, or lying).
There is much that I agree with even if I disagree with his overall premise: the “Yes !!” he adds to the title of his posting. I hate seeing the Shroud mixed up with remnants of Noah’s Ark and many other biblical literalisms. But then again that is half of America’s Christianity, so I understand why Coyne mistakes subjects he is not familiar with, perhaps.
Can we similarly also provisionally accept that there is a god? I think so.
The Skepticism of Russell Blackford
In situations safe or septic,
It’s always best to be a skeptic.
Confronted by a mugger’s gun,
I query, “Is that loaded, son?”
I note, when opening ticking mail
that such devices often fail.
Tornado warning? Oh, no fear –
Statistically, it won’t hit here.
Threatened by some shady guys?
Don’t take precautions, analyze.
Being careful compromises
When climbing on the mountain slopes,
I’m much too skeptical for ropes.
Some say this logic’s inside-out;
I don’t know what they’re on about.
Experience that millions share?
I don’t see it; it’s not there.
Your citations on this matter
sound to me like anecdata.
I write fiction; I’m a pro
and used to be a lawyer so
always be sure you wait for me
to tell you what it is you see.
Skeptical study is my trump;
I, to conclusions, never jump.
Let’s get some data on that humming –
Bus? I never saw it coming.
BIGOTRY ALERT: What is worse here: bigotry, ignorance or what? Donald P. Ames writes about ”That Shroud of Turin” in Truth Magazine: Conservative Christian Bible Study Materials. Without reading the whole article for context, understand that the “proof” being discussed is the claims by some that Roman produced coins can be seen over the eyes. (See There is an Image of a Flying Saucer on the Shroud of Turin).
But, let us examine this “proof” a bit more closely. Who contends the coin is “conclusive proof”? Do all the scholars? Nol Every reference comes back to one person: “The Rev. Francis L. Filas, a professor of theology at Loyola University” (Aurora Beacon News, 11 – 17-8 1). And what is Loyola University? A Catholic school! And who is Mr. Filas? “A Jesuit priest” (Carbondale Southern 11linoisan, 9-2-81)! No wonder he is speaking so boldly in defense of the cloth!
And how conclusive is the “proof” he has produced? Not worth the time it took for the press to set the print for the story! Note that according to the article in the Reader’s Digest the image was so faint and hard to visualize that one had to stand back three foot to even see it at a (Jan. 1984). Further note that the letters, which appear on the side of the coin away from the light source, are but “one-thirty second of an inch high” (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81). Further note that these tiny letters, on the wrong side of the coin, which must be viewed from 3 foot away, are so clear that he has even determined the word “Caesar” was misspelled with a “C” rather than a “K,11 and that this proves conclusively it was a coin issued in the time of Christ (per Mr. Filas, who has a relic to preserve). But, “critics contend experts have no historical record of a coin containing the rare misspelling in Greek of the name Caesar, using a ‘C’ instead of a ‘K,’ and that the markings found on the shroud could have been distorted by age and the texture of the cloth” (Beacon News, 11-17-81). “Some researchers doubt whether a coin really exists in the photographs of the shroud. ‘I think the problem is whether there is any indication of a coin (emp. mine – DPA), said Dr. Walter C. McCrone, a Chicago microscopist who has done research on the shroud. ‘Not very many people except Father Filas (emp. mine – DPA) are able to see it… (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81).
Although Mr. Filas affirms, “As far as I’m concerned, I see no way of objecting to this (conclusion) anymore” (Southern Illinoisan, 9-2-81), we simply remind him and other Catholic relics collectors that we have heard many such strong statements before – in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. In this case, we find no exception. The Shroud of Turin was exposed as a fake when it was first revealed in 1356 A.D., and though it has undergone a variety of tests, Catholicism will not allow any test that will expose it for the fraud it actually is; but rather, they will continue to boldly proclaim their “great find” to those gullible enough to follow their many (and false) relics of the past, the facts notwithstanding!
Maybe it is citing Readers Digest. No, it’s the bigotry. No, it’s the . . .
G. Gispert-Sauch, Professor Emeritus at the Vidyajyoti College of Theology, in another review of “The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection” by Thomas de Wesselow writes in the Deccan Chronical, India’s largest English language newspaper
For the Christian, the Resurrection is a fact, a gracious act of God. According to Wesselow, the early Christian community mistakenly interpreted a natural process (i.e., the “photogenic” imprint of the corpse on the shroud) as an act of God’s revelation. He excludes a priori any theological explanation. I am not sure if such exclusion is more “scientific”. But as a believer, I find it easier to conceive that God showed us a new way of life in raising Jesus from the dead and assuring humanity of a similar end. This belief does not depend on the historical validity of the shroud, but on the testimony of the first generation of believers who “saw” Jesus himself, and its resonance in our personal life. This explains more convincingly the power of the faith in Resurrection than a mere darshan of a shroud with a faint image, even if it was seen by a few hundred persons, as Wesselow thinks it was.
I believe that Wesselow has been referring to himself as agnostic, not atheist.
Thank you Yannick for this excellent summary of my old paper. I can furnish it to everybody. Or alternatively to publish it here (how?)
Regarding the second part of the paper (is the TS image consistent with the laws of diffusion ?), I never finished it. I am not at all a physicist. I only used a beautiful software to try to obtain a mathematical model of what happens in non contact areas. I got some interesting results in the most simple cases but the subject is very complex. Is there here a physicist ?
Thibault forwarded the 2007 paper — the part that Yannick summarized – and with his kind permission I have installed it here in this blogspace for all. Click to read THE IMAGE ON THE TURIN SHROUD: ANALYSIS OF THE MAILLARD REACTION HYPOTHESIS PART (I): THE ORIGIN OF THE REACTIVE AMINES
A big thanks to Thibault and Yannick.
The rogue classicist in his blog posting, Capitoline She-Wolf: 12th Century, uses Shroud of Turin as a new compound conceptualization word. Is Shroud of Turin on its way to become a concept noun for bad carbon dating? Bad science?
This seems to be a followup to a little brouhaha that rearose back in November (see, e.g., in the Telegraph: Romulus and Remus symbol of Rome could be medieval replica) which I don’t think we got around to blogging about. Folks should read Dorothy King’s post from the time: The Capitoline Lupercalia … I think the objections remain. The Corriere della Sera piece mentions radiocarbon dating again, but they’ve done some statistical shifting (i.e. it doesn’t appear they’ve done new tests, but they’ve fudged the numbers … I can’t really find anything on this at the USalento site). The Gulf piece mentions thermoluminescence as well, but I’m not sure how that would apply in this situation. Whatever the case, we seem to be on the cusp of turning the Capitoline She Wolf into the Shroud of Turin of the Classics set …
Actually, this is good English word derivation. And it tends to classify the carbon dating problem as a screw up. Now there is an interesting compound concept word: screw up.
Indeed! I found them very informative so I strongly recommend his very significant blog postings at Deum Videre. This snippet from his blog is intended as pure temptation:
It will be admitted that Wilson’s theory has gained the biggest part of its popularity outside the academic world, and with people who are primarily, if not exclusively, interested in the Shroud of Turin, rather than in Christian relics and art in general. But there has been no scarcity of serious academics who have also found it to be sufficiently convincing – as witness the examples of Cooper, de Várallja, Drews, Dubarle, Frale, Scavone, and, most recently, de Wesselow. [ . . . ] And at the forefront of the sometimes a little disdainful, but unfailingly knowledge-based, resistance to this development stood Professor Averil Cameron
No, I have not changed my mind. But that is not the point. Read:
As promised on The Other Site, I shall no longer mince my words . . .
Yawn (heard similar threats from Colin). So here we go:
. . . This retired science bod grows ever more appalled by the pseudo-science being peddled to support the authenticity of the Shroud as the cloth that was used to wrap the crucified Christ.
The latest egregious example is from the same paper that was the subject of my previous posting, the one by Barbara Faccini and Giulio Fanti (“F&F”)at the International Workshop on the Scientific Approach(sic) on the Acheiropoietos Images (May 2010) .
I pretty much agree.
Their paper makes an extraordinary claim in the Introduction, repeated in the Conclusions, namely that one can discern a time sequence of events by examining the bloodstains on the Shroud – the latter including the scourge marks. They claim that there was a caning first with flexible rods (Type 2 implement) followed by scourging with the Roman flagrum (Type 1) followed by some limited beating of the legs (Type 3) followed finally by the major stains from the nail wounds in the wrists, the spear in the side etc,
I pretty much agree with that, too. But now Colin gets nutty.
Since when has it been the role of allegedly scientific congresses to peddle fantasies that are unsupported by data? Those two authors do a disservice to science (but I note that the second is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, so may not be too bothered about the sensibilities of scientists such as myself).
You couldn’t make it up. Well, you could and you probably do – frequently - if you are a Shroudie so-called scientist. Yup, someone was clearly intent on getting a rapturous round of applause at the end of delivering that paper to fellow Shroudies at their so-called ” International Workshop on the Scientific(sic) Approach”.
Has Colin ever been to a shroud congress? In many cases, papers such as he mentions are met with tough questioning. (One of the purposes of this blog is to pose more questions.) Many congresses or conferences have been closed to the public. More recently, they are open: not to peddle fantasies but to expose ideas and allow opinion to flow. As for a rapturous round of applause? Was he there? As Colin does frequently, it is so much easier to belittle than deal with real substantive criticism.
PS: Dan Porter is free as usual to flag up this paper on his shroudofturin site, but I shall no longer be responding to questions there.
Yawn (heard these threats from Colin before, as well).
INTERESTING: Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie writes in the Huffington Post What Atheism Lacks: Humility, Imagination, Curiosity:
As standards of living improve, religious belief will give way to atheism, and atheism’s victory over religion will be complete by 2038. So argues Nigel Barber, writing on June 5 in the Science section of the Huffington Post.
Relying on what he calls the "existential security hypothesis," Barber claims that people turn to religion to calm the fears and insecurities caused by economic deprivation. But once their basic needs are assured and they are protected from early death by violence or disease, they become more secure in their daily lives and their need for religion fades.
Mr. Barber professes to offer proof for his thesis, most of it drawn from his own writings; although many HuffPost readers liked what he had to say, I did not find it convincing. My reaction can be divided into three parts.
It is worth reading: What Atheism Lacks: Humility, Imagination, Curiosity
Thank you Colin and David Mo. More has been written about the Pray Manuscript in this blog than in all the books ever written about the Shroud of Turin. Thanks to your efforts we now have so much to think about that has never been considered before. Some of it is fact, much of it is opinion, and some of it is mere speculation. Even criticisms of speculation are speculative in some cases. But all of it is a treasure for all of us, skeptic and believer alike. Only good can come from it if we want to know the truth.
I’m quite sure the Pray Manuscript shows a representation of the Shroud. I think so even more so after reading this blog. But I am enriched by the well thought out skepticism of Colin and David Mo. I can no longer say to others, “Look, see this and that.” I must now also say, “Others think this. What do you think?”
But why so even more so? Anyway, I agree. It seems so obvious. I was looking at the ocean yesterday. It was so obviously the ocean. Lacking proof, I guess I could have argued that it was maybe a mirage.
This is excellent. Anglican Bishop Wright, wonderful historian, theologian and Biblical scholar, speaking at Roanoke College in 2007. It will be an informative and entertaining hour and a half well spent.
Paper Chase: The Many Papers from from the Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images
Having just found on your blog one interesting paper from the Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images it occurred to me that your readers might want to know how to get to all the papers. You might want to provide a link.
Point well taken. I did so, but it was a long time ago. Here is what I posted in December 2010:
A Christmas gift from Paolo Di Lazzaro: Thirty six papers from thirty different authors:
Note that these papers are in pdf format. I have been able to save them to a thumb drive but I cannot print them. If you need printed copies you can order a book of the proceedings.
This is interesting but I am a long way from thinking Colin Berry is onto something with his posting Shroud Scope 8: 372 impossible scourge marks (surely?) on the Shroud of Turin:
So areas of image intensity which are identified on the F&F [=Barbara Faccini and Giulio Fanti] map as being scourge marks – if not the Type 1 flagrum type – but the Type 2 rod type – can be located on the Shroud Scope image, if somewhat indistinct (F&F used a range of image-enhancement techniques). But they are not confined to the forearm as indicated on the map. They extend onto the fabric. Why should they do that, if the scourge mark is a type of wound that while imaging at least partly on account of seepage of blood, does not bleed so profusely as to create blood trails onto the fabric beyond the immediate image. If the latter occured generally, then many more “scourge marks” would have shown the same propensity to leak beyond the site of the lesion.
However, if scourge marks – or at any rate, some of the 372 of them on the Man in the Shroud – were not on the figure at the time of imaging, but applied directly to the latter, then it is perhaps not surprising that some were misapplied so as to leave imprints beyond the intended area. The risk of the latter occurring would be greatest, needless to say, with a slender limb than with a more extensive part of the anatomy like the chest, back and shoulders.
My next post will look critically at the entire range of alleged scourge and blood markings on the Shroud, and ask the question: “Is the range and presentation of these markings too good to be true – are we seeing clear evidence of a hoax or forgery?”
A REPLICA of the Turin Shroud will be on show at a Droitwich Spa church.
The Sacred Heart Church, Worcester Road, will display a copy of the historical artefact at 7.30pm on Wednesday, June 27.
The shroud has previously been displayed along with scientific data and examination results at Worcester Cathedral for three weeks.
The original Turin Shroud is a linen cloth that Christians believe bears the image of Jesus Christ and was used to wrap his body following his crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy.
It is, however, very useful for dating artifacts like the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but not quite the right radiometric clock for dating something very old, like the earth or igneous rocks and the objects found near them. Potassium-40 (the potassium-argon clock) is probably better suited for that.
In speaking of assumptions, who, in this case, are the ones jumping to conclusions? The people forming conclusions based on years of careful research, analysis, reason, logic and a certain thing called “evidence,” or the cranks that know the truth because they read it in the Bible? Ah, yes, the Bible. A collection of thousands of years-old allegories and fairy tales, passed on from person to person, tribe to tribe, for hundreds if not thousands of years, before they reached someone literate enough to write them down; translated and transliterated literally hundreds of times, to and from hundreds of languages
I agree with the first paragraph, assuming the work is done right. The second paragraph is idiotic. Dylan can’t distinguish differences in interpretation, I suspect.