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  
•       •       •

14916 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year 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 03:48:22 PM

T.rex: You're not magic either... So are you saying there is no point that you are on this earth?


no one is claiming I am magic and then starting a religion based on my BEING magic.  I am on this earth because my mom got laid in the back seat of some useless asshole's car and neglected to make the dude wear a rubber.  Nope...  no real point I suppose.
 
2013-03-29 04:08:28 PM

rpm: kobrakai: jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.

So what you're saying is there's no such thing as a miracle.

yes


Yes, as long as it has a scientific explanation.  Miracles are (my guess) things we can't explain scientifically yet.
 
2013-03-29 04:15:32 PM

trappedspirit: Vatican researcher in 2009 said that faint writing on the cloth proves it was used to wrap Jesus' body after his crucifixion.

Jesus wuz here


I'm going with "Cannon"
 
2013-03-29 04:16:53 PM
www.blackandwhitecat.org
 
2013-03-29 04:17:35 PM

codergirl42: [www.blackandwhitecat.org image 256x200]


oops didn't realize it was a silly gif...
 
2013-03-29 04:21:44 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.


A few people claim that hundreds of eye witnesses claim to have seen him afterwards.

Hearsay about Hearsay is not what one might consider valuable evidence.
 
2013-03-29 04:46:12 PM

give me doughnuts: malfist: 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.

Please note the bolded, embiggened, and underlined words.


It doesn't matter how bold you make them, it's still just plain wrong. You seem to misunderstand what a "half-life" is.

The basics: for any time period, there is a certain well-measured probability that any particular C14 atom will decay into N14. The half-life is the time period such that 50% of the atoms will decay. After another half-life, 50% more decay. And so on.

They don't suddenly decay all at once. You get a smooth exponential curve of the ratio between C14 (which decays) and C12 (which doesn't). The more precisely you can measure the ratio, the more precisely you can say how old the sample is. The resolution "tick" is, theoretically, the decay of a single atom, which in a sample of 10^23 atoms would make the resolution on the order of a tiny fraction of a femtosecond.

In practice you can't measure it that precisely, though it's pretty stunning how close they can get. (That does set the limit on just how far back they can measure the remaining C14 atoms, which goes for 10 or 12 cycles, or about 60,000 years.)

That isn't, however, the source of coarseness. The assumption is the original ratio of C14 to C12 in the sample. The atmosphere is bombarded cosmic rays that turn N14 back into C14 at a measurable, fairly constant rate. To a first approximation, that's a constant through that kind of time span, and we got OK carbon dates out of that.

To a second approximation, there are bursts of cosmic activity, which slightly alter the production. We can calibrate for that by measuring against artifacts of known age (such as parchment scrolls with dates on them, or wood artifacts known to have been made for a particular event). The further back you go, the wider the error bars; at 2000 years it's about +/- 20 years.

THAT is what the real resolution is. The half-life is NOT the resolution; that's just plain wrong.
 
2013-03-29 04:49:12 PM

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


I grok you, dude.
 
2013-03-29 04:53:48 PM
If it's Turin, it must be Good Friday.
 
2013-03-29 05:00:45 PM
www.blogos.org

Lord, is it a sin to get the hots for Super Hunk Jesus?

Wny yes, it
is my child, but We forgive you.

I mean, really! Look at this adorable punim. Eat your heart out, Brad Pitt!
Who could resist all this? I don't even look remotely Jewish.

And if you saw Us in a sling shot bikini, we'd have to smite ye.

 
2013-03-29 05:02:54 PM
Happy Passover!

All ham and bacon products are half price!
 
2013-03-29 05:08:37 PM
Everybody knows that they substituted Judas for Jesus at the last moment. (Just ask the Muslims and Cathars.)

That's not Jesus.

It's Judas Iscariot.

It's just a coincidence that he looks exactly like a Thirteenth Century sculptors's conception of the Messiah rather than a First Century Judean.
 
2013-03-29 05:09:41 PM

wiredroach: The shroud could have been forged by draping it over pigment applied to a person's face, which would deposit varying levels of pigment in proportion to the "elevation" of each facial feature. Scans of other objects can exhibit "3D" characteristics when there's a correlation between depth and dark/light value:


It it's "draped' over, the distance changes as the cloth conforms to the surface.  To get that distance to be accurate as the image is, you'd have to have a flat sheet.(and hence it's role as film and not an imprint)

The principle they're referring to is easily evident in 3d design.  It's a flat texture wrapped around a 3d structure and then rendered.  A 2d image made when wrapped/draped will not look realistic when unwrapped.

If it were draped, it would look like the following when laid flat:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.comencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

If it were a picture of light projected onto a 2d surface it would look like:
The Shroud of Turin and every portrait you've ever seen.

/also  The differences between 2d paper maps, a globe, and a picture of the globe

Still not convinced?  Easy experiment.
Paint face(maybe just getting it wet will work)
Apply paper towel or cloth somewhat conforming to surface of the face.
Remove cloth and then lie flat on table
 
2013-03-29 05:19:26 PM
It's such an obvious fake I can't believe people are still yammering about it. Really.
 
2013-03-29 05:40:40 PM

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.


Or maybe they didn't feel the need to say he looked differently than other people. Jesus was the son of God, so it makes sense he wouldn't be identical to every other person out there. Doesn't mean it's Him on the shroud, but just because the person supposedly looks different than other people in the era means nothing.
 
2013-03-29 05:53:48 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.


there were these four fellers named Mathew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote about it.
 
2013-03-29 05:55:16 PM
Sad that this is still a thing.

There is no way to "prove" that this shroud was used by the Jesus, unless you can go back in time and find him using it.  All this "science" (contrary to widely-accepted methods) can do is say it may be older than previously thought.  So what?  Even if it was used as a death shroud (which it probably wasn't) in the year 30 AD (which it probably wasn't) of a dead Jew (which it probably wasn't)- there were probably a lot of those guys living at the time.  You're telling me this was used by that one guy?  the one there are NO contemporary accounts of- only stories written down decades and centuries after he died?  Who's name certainly wasn't "Jesus Christ", who wasn't born Dec 25th (Pagan holiday), who was either from Nazareth or Bethlehem (we don't know) but was a 6 ft tall white dude?

If there was a way to take bets on this I'd bet the house- I've never seen easier odds.
 
2013-03-29 05:55:17 PM

Z1P2: If the shroud of turin was used on Jesus, then it proves He didn't resurrect since the image left on it is from decomposition.


nope.  he passed through it.  it was left behind in the tomb.
 
2013-03-29 05:56:53 PM

Lady Indica: It's such an obvious fake I can't believe people are still yammering about it. Really.


They want to believe it sooooooo bad that they would ignore a written confession to making the fake.
 
2013-03-29 05:57:58 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.


ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.
 
2013-03-29 06:00:39 PM

jjwars1: rpm: kobrakai: jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.

So what you're saying is there's no such thing as a miracle.

yes

Yes, as long as it has a scientific explanation.  Miracles are (my guess) things we can't explain scientifically yet.


I've never seen anyone talk themselves in circles here. If science can explain it, past/present/future, it's not a miracle, ergo miracles do not exist. The closest you'll find in the REAL world to a miracle is something incredibly improbable/unlikely or a straight up anomaly. Either way, not a miracle. You'll get over it, but probably not before Christian "science" eats it's own foot a few more times.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 06:02:03 PM

colon_pow: ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.


Ever see studies on eyewitnesses? They suck
 
2013-03-29 06:02:05 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.


Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.
 
2013-03-29 06:05:56 PM

Jim_Callahan: Serious answer to a silly question: Humans do shiat with nuclear reactions now, so carbon dating is not reliable past 1945.  The steady-state function underlying the paradigm has been undermined.


Wow, that's way cool. I had no idea. But I just read that the zero-date for the bomb effect is considered to be 1950. Be excellent
 
2013-03-29 06:09:06 PM

ParagonComplex: Or maybe they didn't feel the need to say he looked differently than other people. Jesus was the son of God, so it makes sense he wouldn't be identical to every other person out there. Doesn't mean it's Him on the shroud, but just because the person supposedly looks different than other people in the era means nothing.


That makes no sense.  If he was so glaringly different, and the reason was so glaringly obvious that you didn't even have to point it out, then why didn't everyone just bow and worship him on sight?  Since everyone evidently was 100% sure about what the Son of God looked like*, and were 100% sure Jesus fit the description (so sure in fact that even mentioning he fit the description was considered too blase to ever be written down), there would be no reason to do otherwise.  "We hates him, yes we does, precious" doesn't even fly.  The priests have abundant records of what happens when you accidentally make God slightly non-orgasmic, i.e. complete genocide; you cannot realistically say the entire upper class of Israel were raging megalomaniacal race-suicides - at least a few would have to have a small sense of self-preservation.

It also doesn't get around the whole Judas pointing him out problem:  Even if the Romans didn't know the universal description of Son of God, there was no reason to go through the whole deal of dragging Judas along. Just grab any Jew and pay them a few coins to explain what the Son of God looks like.  Or turn to the approximately 2,854,781,739,21,729,217,819 Roman centurions who used Jesus as an HMO and then started a fan club francise

*BTW, if it was so glaringly obvious that no one could doubt it, yet not need to describe it, I have to assume the Son of God description was thus: He is 13 feet tall; has bright orange skin, covered is chartreuse tattoos spelling out the phrase "My shiat Smells Like Roses" in every possible language; a blue mohawk half a mile is radius, with each individual hair ending in a foot-wide disco ball; his 9 cocks all drag along the ground behind him for 20 feet, each one whistling the tune for Hava Nagila in 4 part harmony; he has 20 eyes, each neon purple; his teeth are numbered in the hundreds, are each made of steel, and each constantly crawls out of his mouth and ambles along his hundreds of red facial tentacles, until they grow bored and spontaneously explode into showers of diamonds
 
2013-03-29 06:12:47 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.


In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures whose existence is never seriously doubted. In A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, for example, John Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper, yet no one doubts that Alexander existed.  Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant argues that

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philos op hy-2011.html
 
2013-03-29 06:19:29 PM

Mad_Radhu:

I'd be hilarious if Pope Francis, being a Jesuit who seems open to reason, decreed it a fake and told everyone to get over it.
Don't sell yourself short -- you're hilarious now, whether you mean to be or not.
 
2013-03-29 06:20:26 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures whose existence is never seriously doubted. In A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, for example, John Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper, yet no one doubts that Alexander existed.  Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant argues that

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philos op hy-2011.html


Okay, we accept that there was some delusional Jew running around Palestine at some point.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 06:21:00 PM

colon_pow: In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures


Yes, yes it is.

And it is wrong
 
2013-03-29 06:24:04 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.

there were these four fellers named Mathew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote about it.


You're forgetting at least one other source.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-29 06:32:02 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.

there were these four fellers named Mathew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote about it.


Setting aside the dubious historicity of their writings, that's four out of how many hundreds or thousands of supposed witnesses? And those four would be rather biased, too. That'd be like 9/11 only being witnessed by a dozen neo-cons.
 
2013-03-29 06:32:48 PM

omeganuepsilon: wiredroach: The shroud could have been forged by draping it over pigment applied to a person's face, which would deposit varying levels of pigment in proportion to the "elevation" of each facial feature. Scans of other objects can exhibit "3D" characteristics when there's a correlation between depth and dark/light value:

It it's "draped' over, the distance changes as the cloth conforms to the surface.  To get that distance to be accurate as the image is, you'd have to have a flat sheet.(and hence it's role as film and not an imprint)

The principle they're referring to is easily evident in 3d design.  It's a flat texture wrapped around a 3d structure and then rendered.  A 2d image made when wrapped/draped will not look realistic when unwrapped.

If it were draped, it would look like the following when laid flat:

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 275x183][encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 304x166]

If it were a picture of light projected onto a 2d surface it would look like:
The Shroud of Turin and every portrait you've ever seen.

/also  The differences between 2d paper maps, a globe, and a picture of the globe

Still not convinced?  Easy experiment.
Paint face(maybe just getting it wet will work)
Apply paper towel or cloth somewhat conforming to surface of the face.
Remove cloth and then lie flat on table


But the shroud fakery depends on not wrapping the cloth tightly around the face...it's different than using 3D shaders in  modeling software, which conform precisely to the geometry of the model. Which is why the speculation along these lines is that the forger could have used a flat bas relief model for the face with pigment applied. this would transfer pigment at different levels based on the elevation of the facial features, while the cloth would still remain essentially flat and not like what you're describing. Here's a more thorough description of the process:

http://phys.org/news4652.html
 
2013-03-29 06:42:11 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures whose existence is never seriously doubted. In A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, for example, John Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper, yet no one doubts that Alexander existed.  Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant argues that

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philos op hy-2011.html

Okay, we accept that there was some delusional Jew running around Palestine at some point.


There is more evidence that Harry Potter really exists than Jesus.
 
2013-03-29 06:44:09 PM

s2s2s2:

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

That's only ONE of the problems with the forgery idea.  We had a Fark thread more than a year back in which scientists had finally been able to figure out a method by which a similar image could be formed.  They used a UV laser to etch it.  The image is formed, not from pigments, as in paint, but by the fibers being charred.  And, the weird part is that only the OUTSIDE of the fibers is charred.  Cut a fiber, look at the cross-section, and you'll find the inside of the fiber is not charred.  So, if you're okay with the idea that medieval forgers had computers to generate a 2-D encoding of a 3-D image, and a UV laser to burn that image onto the Shroud, yeah, "forgers" is an okay explanation.  Otherwise, keep searching.
 
2013-03-29 06:48:11 PM

Magorn:

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.

No.  The inside of the fibers are not charred.  Draping it over hot metal would char a fiber all the way through.
 
2013-03-29 06:48:32 PM
Dumb as bigfoot.
 
2013-03-29 06:50:11 PM

s2s2s2: 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 image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


This is funny because in a college art project I used the method in paper marbling to creat my own shroud image, with the whole 3-d effect.   even more funny is the shrouds used in Judea at that time were wraps and had two parts, one that wrapped the body and one that wrapped the head.  people prior to the shroud of turnin and several other competing shrouds knew this and created portrates of Jesus with just the head wrap and Jesus with just the body wrap.   yes it is a fake.  yes all of the splinters of the cross are fakes, yes all of the nails, the spear of destiny and the like are all fakes.   quit worshiping idols!
 
2013-03-29 06:52:59 PM

colon_pow: Z1P2: If the shroud of turin was used on Jesus, then it proves He didn't resurrect since the image left on it is from decomposition.

nope.  he passed through it.  it was left behind in the tomb.


Plus look at all the leaked fluids. It wasn't a clean death after all. I'm sure even after cleaning the body there were various proteins and bacteria left over to start staining things.


All in all, just having an object from a legendary figure (even if he isn't magical he has quite a story attached to him) and saying yes, the guy did exist and we have a piece of that history is note worthy. Why do we put pieces of our past in museums? Was Tutankhamun a God? Not likely but he was/is a piece of history.
 
2013-03-29 06:53:20 PM

vygramul:

Doesn't the Urantia book have something to say about this?

Not specifically.  However, the description of the time in the tomb in the Urantia Book WOULD produce an image precisely like that on the Shroud of Turin.  The U.B. was entered into the Library of Congress in 1955, long before the nature of the image on the Shroud was known.  The U.B. also says that veneration of objects is a infantile superstition, so, real or not, it's not important, other than as a historical object.
 
2013-03-29 06:53:30 PM

John Buck 41: Just watched Passion Of The Christ on some cable station. First time since it came out on dvd a few years ago. Just as hard to watch 2nd time around.


Around here we call it "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre". Can't believe that some people show it to children.
 
2013-03-29 06:56:47 PM

give me doughnuts:

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."
You don't read very well, do you?
 
2013-03-29 06:57:10 PM

wiredroach: the forger could have used a flat bas relief model for the face with pigment applied. this would transfer pigment at different levels based on the elevation of the facial features,


Ah, I believe I see what you're saying now.  What you're talking about would be more simply described as a stamp. IE:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Not elevation of the facial features, but in the depiction, the elevation in the bas relief.

That's what was throwing me off.(in combination with "draping" of course.)

You're more about describing how it was done.

I was more simply describing how it couldn't be a shroud.
If you take the following cloth and lie it on a flat surface it will not look like a photograph, whatever image is there would be distorted:
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
Ergo, any image transferral would be more relative to something 2d in nature like a photograph(or as you suggest, an imprint from a flatter object than a human body)

/i do believe the bottom pic is cloth dynamics in Poser, but was one of the better results for "shroud draping" that conveyed the right picture, the coinsidense of 3d software is a fluke
 
2013-03-29 06:58:44 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.


So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.
 
2013-03-29 07:03:06 PM

GeneralJim: raping it over hot metal would char a fiber all the way through.


Heh, raping, that was a total accident, but i'm leaving it.(starting to get angry with my mouse click though)

Anyways, it's like cooking a burger.  You cook it slow, it cooks through, you cook it fast, the outside burns the inside hardly warms up(if you remove it fast enough.

Nothing worse than my brother in law at the grill.  You get Vader burgers.  Black and crispy on the outside, raw and pink in the middle.

/heh, we're all pink in the middle
 
2013-03-29 07:05:52 PM

rpm:

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.
 
2013-03-29 07:06:43 PM
So Jesus was 280 years old when he was crucified?
 
2013-03-29 07:09:13 PM

Big_Fat_Liar:

I've wondered what makes people submit 2nd and 3rd hand articles instead of the original source - especially when it comes to Huffpo or Fox articles. Why use a source a good number of people are going to find laughable when there is an obvious better/original one? (I guess it's just to give people like me something to biatch about)
Speaking personally, if someone submits the GOOD link with a crappy headline, it can be rejected.  Then, "liters" cannot submit that link, and must find another bit of reportage to submit the story with their clever headline.
 
2013-03-29 07:11:48 PM

GeneralJim: Big_Fat_Liar: I've wondered what makes people submit 2nd and 3rd hand articles instead of the original source - especially when it comes to Huffpo or Fox articles. Why use a source a good number of people are going to find laughable when there is an obvious better/original one? (I guess it's just to give people like me something to biatch about)Speaking personally, if someone submits the GOOD link with a crappy headline, it can be rejected.  Then, "liters" cannot submit that link, and must find another bit of reportage to submit the story with their clever headline.


Also, link $, suck as kickbacks or referrals
 
2013-03-29 07:13:03 PM

GeneralJim: rpm: You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.
Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.


Yet still not actually proven to have happened! And do you think your green text makes you important or something?
 
2013-03-29 07:13:46 PM

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

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.


You are more than welcome to takes mythical bronze-age writing complete with multiple versions, deleted and contradictory accounts as a complete and true if you want. You are also welcome to deny that there is noting that exists but the Earth, and the stars but pinholes in the curtain of night. Go all in, it's a free country.
 
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 »






Report