Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   (foxnews.com) divider line 433
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14929 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 09:09:34 AM  
Wishful thinking
 
2013-03-29 09:10:57 AM  

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.
 
2013-03-29 09:11:27 AM  
What Fox News meant to say is that a new study from the department of confirmation bias confirms it is the shroud of Jesus. And never mind all the evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-03-29 09:11:51 AM  

somedude210: Possibly, I mean we've shown just in the last 8 years that humans tend to lack any public empathy and compassion, so maybe he was alien to this world

...or maybe Americans are just aliens to this world

/study it out


For your consideration:

All of the "Abrahamic" faiths, (Christians, Jewish, Muslims,) harken back to the same god. Is it any wonder we're a war-like people? The overwhelming majority of human beings actually worship a deity less responsible than your average teenage babysitter. If you're of the Christian or Jewish variety, then you believe that your god actually set the rules up so that his own son would have to be murdered in a savage ritual for human beings to overcome the curse he collectively bestowed upon them for the results of his own negligence. For it was he, according to your holy texts that allowed an agent of evil into paradise in the first place. it was he who dictated the savage, cruel terms and conditions for "salvation". If you're a Muslim, then it was he who cursed 72 virgins with having to tolerate your sandy ass for eternity for the great service involving your typical murderous religion-based savagery.

Religion: it's really just for savages.
 
2013-03-29 09:12:20 AM  

kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?


Well given as it does belong to them and they do kinda claim to be the spokespeople for its alleged former owner, you might expect them to weigh in.   However to their credit the Vatican takes a very "mythbusters" approach to any claims of miracluous occurances, sacred relics, or appearances of celestial celebrities on household objects
 
2013-03-29 09:13:56 AM  

flynn80: It's not like they crucified thousands of other people, only jesus could have left that wound pattern... oh wait


Didn't the Saudis do one recently?
 
2013-03-29 09:14:06 AM  
Of course it exists.  I used to work in sales with a guy named Jesus.  He was a cool guy, and he wore a shroud-like garment when it got cold outside.

Why is this so hard for people to beleive?
 
2013-03-29 09:14:13 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

2.bp.blogspot.com

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.
 
2013-03-29 09:15:03 AM  
No one has made a forgery that renders a 3D image.
 
2013-03-29 09:15:48 AM  

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


For he is the KWISATZ HADERACH!
 
2013-03-29 09:16:04 AM  

qsblues: Of course it exists.  I used to work in sales with a guy named Jesus.  He was a cool guy, and he wore a shroud-like garment when it got cold outside.

Why is this so hard for people to beleive?


Because most people on Fark don't have jobs.
 
2013-03-29 09:16:36 AM  
Now, I'm pretty sure it's a hoax.  I mean, apparently it's more than just the age at play here.

But, you know.  People still have locks of Elvis'es hair.  People collect stuff relating to celebrities and hoard it.  Just say'in.
 
2013-03-29 09:17:23 AM  
Fox = 'nuff said.

By that I mean "Shut up Fox."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-29 09:17:44 AM  
kronicfeld:
Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?

Well, it seems to think it somehow has authority over people's genitalia, even if they aren't catholic.

I'm sure that they could give themselves authority over that.
 
2013-03-29 09:18:24 AM  

Sgygus: Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.


well there IS  a bit of a problem trying to carbon-date the shorud being as how A) its been repaired a gew times in its exitence using then-contemporary materials  and B) It was very nearly destoryed in a fire that burned the church holding it to the ground, thus depositing enough soot on it to make radio-carbon dating essentially useless.   Personally its a big "meh" for me,  even if it was contemporaneous with the historical existance of Jesus it still proves absolutely nothing, and even if you could conclusively prov it was once wrapped around the real Jesus' body, so what?  Christianity's validity or lack there of should be determined by what you think of the things Jesus had to say, not the existence of absence of "woo-wo" relics
 
2013-03-29 09:18:35 AM  
Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.
 
2013-03-29 09:19:29 AM  

kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?


On matters of Catholic faith, yes. Don't they also possess it? A museum that owns a painting is usually considered the authority on whether that painting is genuine.
 
2013-03-29 09:20:31 AM  

Magorn: Sgygus: Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.

well there IS  a bit of a problem trying to carbon-date the shorud being as how A) its been repaired a gew times in its exitence using then-contemporary materials  and B) It was very nearly destoryed in a fire that burned the church holding it to the ground, thus depositing enough soot on it to make radio-carbon dating essentially useless.   Personally its a big "meh" for me,  even if it was contemporaneous with the historical existance of Jesus it still proves absolutely nothing, and even if you could conclusively prov it was once wrapped around the real Jesus' body, so what?  Christianity's validity or lack there of should be determined by what you think of the things Jesus had to say, not the existence of absence of "woo-wo" relics


Even if it was real and authenticated, the shroud just proves that he lived and died. It doesn't prove he respawned.
 
2013-03-29 09:21:14 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


That's "undocumented terrestrial".
 
2013-03-29 09:21:33 AM  

olddinosaur: Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


1.bp.blogspot.com


1050-1100.
The oldest known crucifix in Denmark, (maybe all of Northern Europe, not sure and can't be bothered to find out).

Actual crown, good abs and if you look closely you can see his defiant look. Thought you might like it.

/picked off some forum somewhere
//that dude is recognizeable
 
2013-03-29 09:22:53 AM  

rpm: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

Possibly not painted.


Associating it with DaVinci seems as fanciful as associating it with Jesus to me.   Some research I've read suggests that you could also recreate the effect of the shroud by heating a bronze casting to about 900 degrees in a oven and then wrapping the linen around it.
 
2013-03-29 09:23:24 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: Those results, Fanti said, were "false" because of laboratory contamination, the Telegraph reported.

Sounds legit.


It was contaminated.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 09:23:26 AM  

s2s2s2: No one has made a forgery that renders a 3D image.


Disapproves
www.biography.com
 
2013-03-29 09:25:29 AM  

rpm: s2s2s2: No one has made a forgery that renders a 3D image.

Disapproves
[www.biography.com image 402x402]


Picture is not a citation unless it is of a 3D rendering he did, or that someone else reproduced using his techniques.
 
2013-03-29 09:27:36 AM  
Fanti, a Catholic, told the Telegraph that the results were based on 15 years of research on fibers taken from the cloth, which were subjected to radiation intensity tests.

Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.


Carbon dating, 10 minutes... chance of contamination, minimal.

Putzing around with samples for 15 years, change of contamination, Danger Will Robinson, Danger.
 
2013-03-29 09:28:38 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Yeah, and this might be true too.  But I doubt it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 409x384]


Wow...  Bat Boy.  They've been using him since the early/mid 80's.  Wouldn't he be in his 40's by now?
 
2013-03-29 09:28:52 AM  
Doesn't the Urantia book have something to say about this?
 
2013-03-29 09:29:02 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: jesus or republican jesus??


American Jesus
 
rpm
2013-03-29 09:29:18 AM  

malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.


You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.
 
2013-03-29 09:31:30 AM  

abhorrent1: Didn't he die the year before 1 A.D.? So if it's real it would be from that year, no?


It's going to be hilarious in here when people start making fun of you for the dumbest post in this thread. Just wait!

malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.


...never mind.
 
2013-03-29 09:31:46 AM  

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


Yeah, but cloned baby Jesus would surely have the mark of the beast. Also, DNA has a shelf life.
 
2013-03-29 09:34:54 AM  
I bought a finger bone from a Black Adder fans that is from Christ.  If it dates between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220, well, that just cinches it.
 
2013-03-29 09:36:46 AM  
You know it is a fake because he isn't holding any guns.
 
2013-03-29 09:37:09 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: I bought a finger bone from a Black Adder fans that is from Christ.  If it dates between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220, well, that just cinches it.


What better way to show your love on St Valentine's day than with a piece of the Saint himself.
 
2013-03-29 09:42:09 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.


I thought this subject had been laid to rest, but I see it's been revived.  It must be Jesus.
 
2013-03-29 09:42:45 AM  
Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.
 
2013-03-29 09:45:10 AM  

rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.


I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.
 
2013-03-29 09:46:39 AM  

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


There's a movie coming out with Christopher Walken with that plot.
 
2013-03-29 09:49:46 AM  

s2s2s2: PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.*

John 18:36:  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

*Yup
Like to hear a song about it? Here it go.



Jesus was a Capricorn. There's a song about that, too.
 
2013-03-29 09:52:59 AM  

malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.


You said it was accurate to 2000 years by stating "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them."

This is off by two orders of magnitutde.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 09:53:57 AM  

malfist: I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.


Have you looked at the calibration curve? It's accurate with 16 years at 6000 years old. The resolution is dependent on how accurately you measure the ratios, it's independent of the half-life. (well, sorta. it is dependent on the uncertainty in the half-life).
 
2013-03-29 09:57:21 AM  

give me doughnuts: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.

You said it was accurate to 2000 years by stating "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them."

This is off by two orders of magnitutde.


I did not say it was accurate to 2000 years, I said samples that were taken 2000 years apart would be equal in apparent age. Which is true, even buy your definition of accuracy.
 
2013-03-29 09:58:46 AM  

kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.



So if you are the Christ
Yes the great Jesus Christ
Prove to me that you're no fool
Walk across my swimming pool
If you do that for me
Then I'll let you go free
C'mon King of the Jews

I only ask the things I'd ask any superstar
What is it that you have got
That puts you where you are? Oh, ho ho
I am waiting
Yes I'm a captive fan
I'm dying to be shown
That you are not just any man
 
2013-03-29 10:03:47 AM  

kid_icarus: This. Even if it does date back to Jesus's time, that doesn't mean it was Jesus's burial shroud..


Not to mention that the SOT doesn't match the description of the shroud in the Bible. You might think that Christians would have a problem with this.
But you would be wrong.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 10:03:54 AM  

malfist: I did not say it was accurate to 2000 years, I said samples that were taken 2000 years apart would be equal in apparent age. Which is true, even buy your definition of accuracy.


*headdesk* LOOK AT THE GODDAMN CALIBRATION CURVE
 
2013-03-29 10:06:00 AM  
But is it Raptor Jesus?

proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com
 
2013-03-29 10:06:15 AM  
FFS just LOOK at the thing. Any non-moran can see it's not real.
 
2013-03-29 10:10:26 AM  

malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.


Wow. You quite literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I hope that somebody with more patience than I will come along and explain it to you, starting with what the word "resolution" means. As you backpedal furiously here, though, don't forget that you are on record as saying, and I quote, "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them". Like, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which span the period from right before to right after 1AD?

Unless, of course, it's your position that every lab that has ever tested the scrolls, and every historian, theologian, or archaeologist who has ever relied on their tests doesn't understand carbon dating the way you do. Is that your theory?

Perhaps you are unaware that carbon dating is so sensitive that to get a really accurate date range, you have to calibrate against the small natural fluctuations in atmospheric C14 levels in different times and places?

Look, the smart thing to do at this point is to say "Crap, I confused carbon dating with something else entirely. I shouldn't post before coffee." The dumb thing to say is "NO!!! I'm RIGHT!!!! And every scientist on the planet, and every paper every published using carbon dating is WRONG!!!". And the embarrassing thing to say is "Those words that I posted, they really don't mean what they obviously mean."


Smart, dumb, embarrassing: your choice.
 
2013-03-29 10:12:32 AM  
Could you 3D print Jesus?
 
2013-03-29 10:13:07 AM  
Close2TheEdge: It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists  Climate Change Alarmists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.

/FTFF (Fixed That For Fark)

//Because sometimes you feel like a troll.
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report