Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

40. Don't be coy, Warren.

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 04:00 AM

Feb 2014

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it was done, let alone be done in the fourteenth century.

The thing clearly exists and has unique characteristics. There was no technique (the word I used) extant in the fourteenth century capable of producing those results nor are there any other examples of objects like that from the fourteenth century.

The claim that it is a fourteenth century hoax itself has problems that require explanation.

As to this, "You know this on faith?", I know this because I am not a fucking idiot.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Could ancient earthquake explain Shroud of Turin? [View all] Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 OP

Except it hasn't been explained how it was fabricated. rug Feb 2014 #1

It was a miracle! Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #3

And controlled inquiry has not explained how it was made. rug Feb 2014 #4

Hmmm. longship Feb 2014 #9

What guy? I hadn't heard that. rug Feb 2014 #11

Nope. All one has to do is falsify it. longship Feb 2014 #15

That really doesn't do it. rug Feb 2014 #18

Well, the accuracy is high enough to state that the shroud certainly is not a 1st century object. longship Feb 2014 #20

Not quite. There was no fourteenth century technique to create it. rug Feb 2014 #36

So you are certain that there was no Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #39

Don't be coy, Warren. rug Feb 2014 #40

You made the assertion that it could not Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #41

You made the assertion it's a hoax. rug Feb 2014 #42

It is a hoax based on its dating. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #43

That's just a part of it. Replicate it. rug Feb 2014 #44

Been done edhopper Feb 2014 #45

Been debunked. rug Feb 2014 #46

By members of STURP? edhopper Feb 2014 #47

Compared to the Italian Committee for Checking Claims on the Paranormal? rug Feb 2014 #51

LIKE debating a creationist edhopper Feb 2014 #56

"Debunked" by Catholic idiots who know nothing about identifying skepticscott Feb 2014 #72

Ok, post the evidence instead of idiotically calling people idiots. rug Feb 2014 #74

Try reading a book, ruggie skepticscott Feb 2014 #76

McCrone is hardly the last word. rug Feb 2014 #79

I haven't heard anything about a "deathbed confession," either. okasha Feb 2014 #65

And there is edhopper Feb 2014 #68

It's not a negative skepticscott Feb 2014 #71

There are several people edhopper Feb 2014 #33

if you're referring to Joe Nickell, I'm not impressed. rug Feb 2014 #34

The Joe Nickel effort at replication okasha Feb 2014 #66

Yes edhopper Feb 2014 #67

It doesn't even match the Biblical description exboyfil Feb 2014 #2

Shhhhhh. Facts matter little when dealing with religious beliefs. cleanhippie Feb 2014 #5

In that case, please do explain how it was made. rug Feb 2014 #6

It was made by a special very local earthquake. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #7

I see. You have no explanation. rug Feb 2014 #12

It was a miracle! God made it Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #14

Lol! cleanhippie Feb 2014 #25

Clearly. Had you one you'd have produced it. rug Feb 2014 #35

It was aliens. trotsky Feb 2014 #8

If it was done by hoaxsters, there should be evidence of how it was done. rug Feb 2014 #13

"God did it" Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #16

That is the case. rug Feb 2014 #17

Do you believe it was the shroud of Jesus Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #19

I doubt it. But I'm more interested in knowing how it was done. rug Feb 2014 #23

I like the da Vinci theory. reusrename Feb 2014 #27

Did they find any silver sulphate on the shroud? rug Feb 2014 #28

Is this a test? reusrename Feb 2014 #29

No. Isn't the da Vinci theory that he was commissioned to replace an earlier one? rug Feb 2014 #30

Whether or not da Vinci ever made use of one of those is still up for debate. reusrename Feb 2014 #31

Well, there's another theory that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait. rug Feb 2014 #32

the camera obscura was not a camera in the modern sense, but merely a device struggle4progress Feb 2014 #59

facts are not important. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #60

Apparently not. rug Feb 2014 #62

Has RationalWiki let me down yet again? rug Feb 2014 #61

Sort of. The camera obscura doesn't require Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #63

Perhaps not: I may just be running my mouth again struggle4progress Feb 2014 #64

And the fact that pigments were found edhopper Feb 2014 #69

The Shroud is of no particular importance to me; it is irrelevant to my theological views; and struggle4progress Feb 2014 #70

Submit the whole thing for independent analysis. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #48

Won't ever happen edhopper Feb 2014 #49

It has, at least twice. Thevresults are inconclusive. rug Feb 2014 #50

I thought McCrone did this in 1979/80? enlightenment Feb 2014 #54

hmmm edhopper Feb 2014 #57

He did, and none of those findings have been proven false skepticscott Feb 2014 #73

I personally think it was not the real burial shroud. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #10

Apparently it does not even match 1st century burial practices. longship Feb 2014 #21

That same rule apples to all those "Jesus' Foreskin" artifacts, too. arcane1 Feb 2014 #52

Looking for Neutrons in a Rock Crushing Experiment struggle4progress Feb 2014 #22

My gut reactions to the Carpinteri claims struggle4progress Feb 2014 #24

I hope you didn't have to do a Google search skepticscott Feb 2014 #37

Carpinteri went off the rails with his piezo-electric-rock-fracture-induced-nuclear-reaction theory struggle4progress Feb 2014 #38

One good thing about DU - we argue about EVERYTHING!!! Laf.La.Dem. Feb 2014 #26

LOL...no. Iggo Feb 2014 #53

No, an earthquake doesn't explain and doesn't need to skepticscott Feb 2014 #55

Amen edhopper Feb 2014 #58

Speaking of "starting with a conclusion and reasoning backwards", produce the "well known" technique rug Feb 2014 #75

It's called grisaille skepticscott Feb 2014 #77

40 seconds. rug Feb 2014 #78