Shroud of Turin

Introduction I'm not avoiding or dropping any arguments. I'm just referring to arguments in previous rounds so one earlier in the same round is almost being entirely ignored. In part, I'm doing this to deal with space constraints. In part it's because it is the fairest way to treat my opponent. On a related note, Italians don't throw spaghetti at the wall. Real Italians cook their pasta al dente. If it sticks to the wall it's over cooked. STURP STURP's findings and work have been brought up a lot, so let's focus on them briefly. STURP is not an unbiased organization. They have a strong pro authenticity stance on the shroud and were hand picked by the Catholic Church, to be allowed to examine the cloth. Here is a quote taken from a sit I previously referenced. "The STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) group of scientists examined the shroud in 1978. Unfortunately almost all of these scientists were deeply religious, many were not specialised in the field they investigated and they were actively trying to prove its authenticity. In their book 'Debunked!', physicists Georges Charpak and Henri Broch noted that STURP consisted of 40 scientists, made up of 39 devout believers and 1 agnostic. Knowing that the proportion of believers to agnostics is much different in scientific circles than it is in the general population, they calculated that the odds of selecting a group of 40 scientists at random and achieving this high ratio of believers is 7 chances in 1,000,000,000,000,000. In other words the makeup of this group is stacked and very biased towards authenticating the shroud, and therefore you must take their claims with an extremely large grain of salt. In fact before they even examined the shroud, STURP scientists went on record with statements such as: "I am forced to conclude that the image was formed by a burst of radiant energy " light if you will. I think there is no question about that." "What better way, if you're a deity, of regenerating faith in a sceptical age, than to leave evidence 2000 years ago that could be defined only by the technology available in that sceptical age." "The one possible alternative is that the images were created by a burst of radiant light, such as Christ might have produced at the moment of resurrection." "I believe it through the eyes of faith, and as a scientist I have seen evidence that it could be His shroud."" http://www.sillybeliefs.com... Obvious Fraud "The Bishop d'Arcy letter that Con refers to is more questionable than the shroud we are debating." No historian outside of shroud believers doubt the authenticity of that letter. The letter isn't questionable. There is such a huge consensus among historians, that the letter's authenticity should be taken as fact. http://www.badarchaeology.com... The Shroud didn't belong to Jesus & More Biblical Evidence "You will note that along the top edge there is a shorter strip of cloth. This is a separate strip of cloth made from the same piece of cloth. [2] Additionally, the hand stitching of the seam between the main Shroud and the side strip is known only from textiles excavated from the first-century Jewish fortress at Masada, near the Dead Sea. [2]" The original source for all this information is a book written by Ian Wilson. To put it mildly Wilson, is full of crap. Other books by Ian Wilson 1.Worlds Beyond: From the Files of the Society for Psychical Research, 1986 ISBN 0-297-78604-0 2.The After Death Experience: The Physics of the Non-Physical, 1989 ISBN 0-688-08000-6 3.In Search of Ghosts, 1996 ISBN 0-7472-4707-2 4.Superself: The Hidden Powers Within Us, 1989 ISBN 0-283-99656-0 The materials and the stitching in the shroud were common in medieval times. http://skepdic.com... The Shroud Turin contradicts biblical accounts of the burial cloth of Jesus. When the bible refers to strips of cloth, it means a bunch of tiny strips wrapped around Jesus. "(Luke XXIV.12 and John XX.5, both using the Greek plural word P00;_2;a2;_7;_3;^5;, meaning "small pieces or strips of linen")" http://www.badarchaeology.com... It should also be noted that the shroud wouldn't have been folded over Jesus. He had a separate face wrap, so the folding over would have been unnecessary. John 20:7 "as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen." Evidence Outside of the Bible The recently discovered Jewish burial cloth for the first century, is the only one we have that we can use for comparison. Everything we know about Jesus suggests that his burial clothes would be simple and cheap, not expensive and finely made. "The Jews were prohibited from mixing wool and linen Dt. 22:11" This sounds like the "no true Scotsmen" logical fallacy. No true Jew would have a burial cloth mixed with wool and linen. It's a statement that is made even more absurd when you take into account, that one of the reasons Jesus ended up on the cross is, because of how much he bucked tradition. The leper's burial cloth and the biblical narrative are the only clues we have to what Jesus was likely wearing after his death. C14 Dating Cotton fibers were found all over the shroud as can be confirmed by Dr. McCrone's work, and you can't reliably date a cloth using vanillin. If you could that would have been done instead of the C14 tests. http://freeinquiry.com... In the video provided by my opponent, you can see how "Shroudies" were doing anything they could to discount the C14 tests, as soon as they were completed. Great care was taken to take a sample of the cloth from a spot that wasn't altered for repairs. Such incredible care was taken, precisely to squash conspiracy theories like this before they got started. Unfortunately, nothing can stop a good conspiracy theory. http://www.csicop.org... Painting Those aren't blood stains on the shroud of Turin. Walter McCrone tested them and found it to be paint residue. Other indicators it isn't blood, is the red color instead of brown like it should be when blood has been dry for a while, and the blood stains being a little too neat and not matting down the hair of Jesus. http://articles.philly.com... Crotch test My crotch test still stands as proof if some of the issues with the disproportionate image of Jesus. Jesus wasn't asleep he was dead. He didn't have a pillow. His hands cover his crotch, because the artist found it inappropriate to show the penis of Jesus, it's the same reason the image of his butt doesn't appear on the cloth, despite the fact it should be very clear. Art History of the Shroud In this section my opponent brings up many examples of how the shroud of Turin is similar to Byzantine art. I agree, the shroud does look like Byzantine art. It looks remarkably similar. If anything the similarities should be used to point to the fact that it is Byzantine art. You shouldn't have brought up these points, they're evidence for my position not yours. Conclusion The shroud is fake.