show me some evidence, evidence, and evidence

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Complete nonsense, suggesting a blatant agenda. That we don't know how it was done only tells us that we don't know how it was done, not that it must have required mystical powers.

I've had his debate with Deadline. Go watch a magic show. Can you explain how they do every trick in details? If you can't does that force you to admit that they have transcended scientific fact?

Personally the "they used a statue" hypothesis seems perfectly reasonable.

anyway, using a statue doesn't make much sense seeing as the way in which the face was ingrained would require chemicals emitted from the body after death (one theory).

but hey, if you're really that against the possibility that it's real, that's your prerogative.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Except, that's not how science works. If you can't explain something, you don't get to declare that it has to be magic. It simply remains an unexplained phenomenon.

in fact, isn't that was unexplained phenomena is? Things that transcend scientific fact of the time, that doesn't mean we won't be able to explain it in the future.

Originally posted by Trackz
who the hell are you debating with...

The quote that you posted.

Do you not read your own sources? Bad form, old bean, bad form indeed.

Originally posted by Trackz
anyway, using a statue doesn't make much sense seeing as the way in which the face was ingrained would require chemicals emitted from the body after death (one theory).

Wait, let me guess, there's absolutely no basis for that idea at all.

Originally posted by Trackz
but hey, if you're really that against the possibility that it's real, that's your prerogative.

I'm not against the possibility at all. I'm just pointing out the author's blatant agenda and incredibly poor reasoning.

Originally posted by Trackz
in fact, isn't that was unexplained phenomena is? Things that transcend scientific fact of the time, that doesn't mean we won't be able to explain it in the future.

Now who's using semantics?

And again these are weasel words, meant to get a particular phrase in the door so that you can switch up the definition later.

You seem more Schopenhauer than Boole too me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The quote that you posted.

Do you not read your own sources? Bad form, old bean, bad form indeed.

Wait, let me guess, there's absolutely no basis for that idea at all.

I'm not against the possibility at all. I'm just pointing out the author's blatant agenda and incredibly poor reasons.

there is a basis, it should be in one of the links I posted...am I the only one who's read up on this? I mean I'm not an expert but I've read the various theories including the ways that people have tried to replicate the feat. A scientist in france tried using a human frame of reference and using chemicals to get the imprint of the individual on the cloth however it failed since the imprint wasn't as visible as the one on the shroud.

I don't believe they were inferring it was magical just that it was beyond what we can do now...that doesn't mean we won't figure it out, but that's just semantics.

How do you feel about the content of the article? That a technique could be used to produce such a notable work and then not be replicated and the individual takes no credit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Now who's using semantics?

And again these are weasel words, meant to get a particular phrase in the door so that you can switch up the definition later.

You seem more Schopenhauer than Boole too me.

...I feel like you're missing my entire point.

Originally posted by Trackz
forget about the semantics, you neglected to address the content of the article which put forth a good point. I'm interested in what you think of that, not whether or not to call it magic or unexplained.

in fact, isn't that was unexplained phenomena is? Things that transcend scientific fact of the time, that doesn't mean we won't be able to explain it in the future.

Um, exactly... that's why just because it can't be explained doesn't provide evidence for any point of view. People in ancient greece said that lightning bolts proved Zeus's existence, and with the science of the times, there was no way to explain it outside of divine magic. You can see the obvious fallacy here: the fact that you can't explain something with current science is irrelevant to whether it has a scientific origin, that should be completely obvious when you look objectively.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What good point? I already said earlier, I have no idea what technique was used to create it, and frankly I don't care. My only point is that, "unknown technique" is completely different from "it was Jesus". Even if there is no explanation of the former it is not evidence of the latter. So his whole article is based on false premises.

Um, exactly... that's why just because it can't be explained doesn't provide evidence for any point of view. People in ancient greece said that lightning bolts proved Zeus's existence, and with the science of the times, there was no way to explain it outside of divine magic. You can see the obvious fallacy here: the fact that you can't explain something with current science is irrelevant to whether it has a scientific origin, that should be completely obvious when you look objectively.

I'm certain we'll figure out how the process was done but saying that the process is beyond science fact is different than saying it's beyond science in general...but that's just semantics. Even if you don't think it proves that it's Jesus, it makes it more believable that this is a legitimate burial shroud, no?

Originally posted by Trackz
I'm certain we'll figure out how the process was done but saying that the process is beyond science fact is different than saying it's beyond science in general...but that's just semantics. Even if you don't think it proves that it's Jesus, it makes it more believable that this is a legitimate burial shroud, no?

Yes, its possible this could have belonged to Jesus. Its also possible that it was created by Zeus, or by a space alien or time traveler. Or that some quantum fluctuation simply caused it to manifest from the ether. Or that it was created by Leonardo Da Vinci. These are all possible, but to say they have evidence requires a little more.

Originally posted by Trackz
check out the two links i posted for Digi. I think it says something about that in them, they're pretty informative regardless.

you might be right, they know it's not a painter though.

oh, because the sources I trust generally conclude it is at 14th century forgery to which the painter confessed to creating...

funny, that

trakz, I have a thought experiment for you:

pretend i actually created my shroud art project. How many years would have to go by before a large enough portion of society thought it was real, provided people kept telling them it was?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But see, this is exactly what you don't get. Whether its "believable" is irrelevant. To claim something is evidence, it needs to actually provide positive support for it; not simply say its "possible".

Yes, its possible this could have belonged to Jesus. Its also possible that it was created by Zeus, or by a space alien or time traveler. Or that some quantum fluctuation simply caused it to manifest from the ether. Or that it was created by Leonardo Da Vinci. These are all possible, but to say they have evidence requires a little more.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, because the sources I trust generally conclude it is at 14th century forgery to which the painter confessed to creating...

funny, that

the perspective of the face is that of painting rather than a 3d image?

Originally posted by inimalist
the perspective of the face is that of painting rather than a 3d image?

tell me what you think

the term "perspective" only appears on the sidebar of that page....

Originally posted by inimalist
the term "perspective" only appears on the sidebar of that page....

edit.

try this http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rA-yfdRAb_wJ:www.shroudstory.com/notofhand.htm+why+the+shroud+of+turin+isn%27t+a+painting&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1

you have a link that suggests the shroud face is actually congruent with a 3d face rather than a 2d one?

just ****ing look at it... god... did you not have grade 5 art classes?

Originally posted by Trackz

edit.

try this http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rA-yfdRAb_wJ:www.shroudstory.com/notofhand.htm+why+the+shroud+of+turin+isn%27t+a+painting&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1

the term "perspective" does not appear on that page

Originally posted by inimalist
you have a link that suggests the shroud face is actually congruent with a 3d face rather than a 2d one?

just ****ing look at it... god... did you not have grade 5 art classes?

1. most sources say it's congruent to a 3-d negative
2. i'm sorry that a civil discussion is clearly beyond you