If you want some context see You guys are brutal

Hi Colin:

imageWe are not about maligning anyone in this blog. To question the 1988 carbon dating, as we do, is to be scientific. Did Lemaître and Hubble malign Einstein by questioning his conclusion that the universe was static? Were they wrong in doing so? The work on the shroud goes on and it should. And yes, some things done by the carbon dating labs or others involved in the testing look suspiciously like — dare we say it — pseudoscience. Well, if not that, poorly executed. To suggest, as you do, that the “sole raison d’etre of the [=this] site is to defame the people who produced the radiocarbon dating, and to do so with barely concealed innuendos and smears that stop just short of legally-actionable libel” is preposterous in the extreme.

As for my scientific qualifications I took a chemistry class in high school and I can stir up a mean Andouille and chicken gumbo. You did say you were a foodie chemist, didn’t you?

As for your question, “So what are the special scientific insights that Episcopalians have that are denied to us ordinary mortals?”, only this: For every two Episcopalians there are three opinions (fact) and thus given enough of us there is a good chance that within a multi-universe (and maybe some of them are static) one of us, somewhere, has evolved within our species, homo-episcopalianis, enough so to be right. That’s me. So you can’t lay it on all Episcopalians.