Religion

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)

27. Paint.... schmaint

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 01:38 PM

Jul 2013

The carbon dating puts it in the time it 1st appeared. (not to mention it is highly unlikely to find a twill weave such as the shroud's fabric in the time and place of Christ) And I've read somewhere that the image is not anatomically correct.

But y'know... religious people love a clutter of contradicting suppositions (just look at any religious text) so the controversies serve to enhance their faith. They love muddy water.

It's obviously a fake to clear thinking people.

But y'all have your fun pretending it matters whether it's real or not.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Shroud of Turin [View all] refrescanos Jul 2013 OP

They HAVE to lie about it Politicalboi Jul 2013 #1

Who is "they?" okasha Jul 2013 #11

Just a guess... Lordquinton Jul 2013 #14

Do not have cable but I keep hearing how "The History Channel " is rewriting history lunasun Jul 2013 #58

Science in the hands of religionists defacto7 Jul 2013 #2

It's a painting skepticscott Jul 2013 #3

Yes, exactly right. JNelson6563 Jul 2013 #4

I don't know what it is but there's no paint on it. rug Jul 2013 #6

It's anatomically incorrect muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #7

And the head is 5% disproportionate. rug Jul 2013 #8

Rug is correct that it's not painted. okasha Jul 2013 #13

Rug is wrong, as usual skepticscott Jul 2013 #16

Not to say you're wrong again, scottie, but the term here would be brunaille, not grisaille. rug Jul 2013 #17

Do some real research, ruggie skepticscott Jul 2013 #22

Lol, lovely talking to you again, as always. rug Jul 2013 #29

In other words, you have nothing but blather skepticscott Jul 2013 #41

The only time I'm surrounded by blather is when you go off on one of your usual tangents. rug Jul 2013 #51

Paint.... schmaint AlbertCat Jul 2013 #27

You know, if you would clear your mind of preconceived notions every so often, you'll do better. rug Jul 2013 #30

Yes, more idiots trying to be relevant skepticscott Jul 2013 #42

He's down to sputtering and name-calling. okasha Jul 2013 #46

Why so adamant? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #49

I' glad to see you approach the study of unusual phenomena with an open mind. rug Jul 2013 #50

I' glad to see you approach the study of unusual phenomena with an open mind. AlbertCat Jul 2013 #65

I agree WolverineDG Jul 2013 #28

It is a remarkable artifact. okasha Jul 2013 #35

Poor okasha skepticscott Jul 2013 #44

While what you describe edhopper Jul 2013 #66

Actually, your excitable friend okasha Jul 2013 #67

Sorry, but I provided no such thing skepticscott Jul 2013 #68

The problem isn't missing works edhopper Jul 2013 #70

In all likelihood, she knows better skepticscott Jul 2013 #71

What's questionable, ed? okasha Jul 2013 #74

You really think edhopper Jul 2013 #75

No, I was not referring okasha Jul 2013 #76

Follow up. okasha Jul 2013 #79

There is zero evidence for photographic processes before the 19th century. Warren Stupidity Jul 2013 #80

Before I go further edhopper Jul 2013 #9

Not yet. But I'm pretty sure there's no paint on it. rug Jul 2013 #12

Discredited? Hardly skepticscott Jul 2013 #15

Discredited, totally. rug Jul 2013 #18

Just for starters, okasha Jul 2013 #19

McCrone received skepticscott Jul 2013 #24

Belief is stronger edhopper Jul 2013 #25

Belief in what, ed? okasha Jul 2013 #36

it's not a painting edhopper Jul 2013 #38

Good. We agree that it's not a painting. okasha Jul 2013 #45

He did it back in the 80s edhopper Jul 2013 #47

Assuming the picture on the cover of his book okasha Jul 2013 #60

Of course you ignore the fact skepticscott Jul 2013 #61

Let me check your list, scottie . . . . rug Jul 2013 #39

And of course you can back this up with facts skepticscott Jul 2013 #23

That book is to chemistry what Dan Brown is to history. rug Jul 2013 #31

More ignorant, hand-waving dismissal skepticscott Jul 2013 #40

Yes, a link to a chemical journal is a hand-waving dismisal. rug Jul 2013 #52

Since you haven't read McCrone's book skepticscott Jul 2013 #63

Lol! "wouldn't have understood it if you did" rug Jul 2013 #64

I went to Turin back in the 70's to see this thing... damyank913 Jul 2013 #5

I never believed it had anything to do with Jesus. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #10

I prefer the Spear of Destiny, a far more legitimate relic: dimbear Jul 2013 #20

We could of course build an ark... uriel1972 Jul 2013 #21

Good evidence that religion is a scam... MellowDem Jul 2013 #26

Lol, lol, lol. rug Jul 2013 #32

I want to get something straight edhopper Jul 2013 #33

I do believe you're reasonably literate, ed. okasha Jul 2013 #34

i am not clear edhopper Jul 2013 #37

The simple, straightforward answer is no. okasha Jul 2013 #43

OK, so you don't think it's a painting. trotsky Jul 2013 #48

See my post 35 okasha Jul 2013 #53

Unfortunately that is not visible to me due to the way DU's ignore feature works. trotsky Jul 2013 #55

Yes, but can't do it till back to regular okasha Jul 2013 #56

That short version will do just fine, thanks. trotsky Jul 2013 #57

My whole dispute with the person okasha Jul 2013 #59

Your reasons were uninformed skepticscott Jul 2013 #62

I saw a show on that Marrah_G Jul 2013 #69

Very. okasha Jul 2013 #72

I'd love it! Marrah_G Jul 2013 #73

The person who made the photograph okasha Jul 2013 #78

thank you :) Marrah_G Jul 2013 #81

This. Lint Head Jul 2013 #54

The history channel is so full of lies it ought rurallib Jul 2013 #77