With Joel Bernstein, Professor of Chemistry for NYU Abu Dhabi and Ben Gurion University of the Negev speaking about the Shroud of Turin at Scitech and The Institute of Advanced Studies at UWA, Dr. Karl of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) wanted to remind this blogs’ readers about three articles he wrote back in 2009. You are reminded. Now have fun finding errors of fact and arguable conclusions:
Shroud stalwarts scorn science
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 30 comments
Great Moments in Science Scientific tests confirm that the image appearing on a Turin burial cloth is a fabrication. Dr Karl unwraps the mystery to resurrect a shrouded, centuries-old answer.
Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful
Wednesday, 26 August 2009 31 comments
Great Moments in Science Believing in the authenticity of the famous shroud of Turin is one thing but what of the science? Dr Karl scours the evidence in an attempt to see the light.
Some life left in holy relic
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 14 comments
Great Moments in Science For many Christians, the shroud of Turin is proof of the resurrection miracle. Dr Karl can’t quite believe what he sees.
I’ll read that carefully. Thanks Dan !
Skeptical like that always make me laugh ! During my luch time, I’ve read rapidly the 3 articles from this Dr. Karl and I had the impression to read Joe Nickell ! They all sound the same…
But if those skeptical would agree to be HONEST for a time, they would admit that, beside the radiocarbon dating of 1988, they got NO hard scientific fact that can really challenge the authenticity of the Shroud. And, since 1988, they would admit that the work of Rogers and Adler (particularly) seriously put the dating in question ! One thing is scientifically proven now (and if you don’t trust this it’s because you don’t trust the honesty of Rogers and Adler) : The only sample they took to date the Shroud was not representative of the main cloth. Now, for the question of how can that be, there’s many hypothesis. The one I favored the most is the invisible reweaving but there can be some other possibilities. The important thing is that the C14 sample was chemically different, period.
And, as I said, if they don’t believe this fact, it’s only because they don’t trust the honesty of Rogers and Adler, who were real scientists. And I don’t think we can accuse them of being Jesus freaks !!! In fact, Adler was a Jew !
So, the only thing I would tell to Dr. Karl is to get all the STURP papers (published in peer-reviewed journals) and read them carefully. I recommand him also to read carefully the books of Rogers and Adler. After all this reading, if he’s honest, he would have to admit that there’s NOTHING in all the data reported that can contradict the authenticity of the Shroud and there’s NOTHING to suggest a forgery. But, can he be honest enough to admit that ???
This last comment about the data of STURP didn’t mean necessarily that the Shroud is authentic but that prove (with 99% confidence) that it can’t be a forgery… PERIOD !
You know it really baffles me and I’ve said this before on here, that alot of people will take what people like Dr.Karl has to say and just believe it’s true with no question.Reading the comments after the three articles really opened my mind to how STUPID alot of people are, or maybe gullible is the right word.Some of these commenters praise the guy (Dr.Karl). Why? because he has a DR. before his name or a couple of letter afterwards? I don’t know, but it is a total bafflement that all these people will not take the time to do real ‘research’ themselfs.If only they did, they would see how ‘Untruthful’ and ‘mis-leading’ most of Dr Karl’s message is.IMO, he is a fraud and a liar (pretending to have actual knowledge on the subject) and I place him in the same catagory as that other guy, whats his name again?, …oh, Mr.Nickells
ps. I can’t believe these guys get paid for these lectures either, what a scam.
Ron.