Shroud of Turin

I thank Wylted for one of the most amusing rounds of debate I have yet to receive. In fact, if I had to guess I'd say that he is Italian. I do so because he has thrown up a massive amount of spaghetti in a desperate attempt to make something stick. Because hey, if you don't have good arguments, you can at least have lots.I would like to remind my opponent that he has a shared burden of proof. Now you would think that if my opponent believes that the shroud is a forgery, he would simply show how it could have been made. Right? However we have heard nary a peep except for the discredited work of Walter McCrone.McCrone was"Asked if he had treated them (purported paint samples) chemically, his answer was "I didn't have to." ...When one one of his colleagues exclaimed, "Do you mean you just looked through your microscope and, and without doing specific test for iron oxide, can proclaim it a painting?" McCrone confidently replied, "Yes." [1]This is the type of "science" that pro is expecting you to rely on in this debate.Let's look at the real science of the shroud.In 1898 Secondo Pia took a picture of the shroud only to find that the shroud is not a picture, but a negative:http://www.debate.org...Atheists were enraged and called him a fraud. However in 1931 Giuseppe Enri photographed the shroud confirming Pia's findings. [2]In 1973 Dr. Max Frei collected pollen samples from the shroud. [2]In 1976 it was found that the image on the Shroud incorporated 3D image information:http://www.debate.org...In 1978 the STRUP team studied the shroud for 120 consecutive hours. [2] I posted the summary of findings from the team in round 3, which I will summarize here.The shroud is not formed by any pigments dyes or stains. It is not the product of an artist. The blood is real blood containing hemoglobin. The blood contains an elevated bilirubin count which is consistent with a haemolytic process caused by torture. [3]There are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. This is because:The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team.Additionally the image on the shroud cannot be seen when closer than about 15' because of the way the image is formed. it is like standing too close to a jumbotron.The image on the shroud has an estimated thickness of 200-800 nanometers and only coats the outermost fibrils of the shroud. That is half the thickness of a soap bubble and thinner than most bacteria. [4]We also have the Sudarium of Oviedo to consider.The sudarium is the head cloth that was put over Jesus when he was transported to the tomb. Both cloths contain type AB blood, both have blood that was shed before and after death. And the wound locations on both match with each other as confirmed by several qualified forensic doctors to conclude that both the sudarium and the shroud were in contact with the same dead body. Time stamp 37:00- video one.http://www.youtube.com...Both the sudarium and the shroud have blood stains that are 1 part blood and 6 parts pulmonary fluid. Additionally both cloths contain pollens of the Gundelia tournefortii that grows only in Israel and southern Lebanon. [5]The oral history of the Sudarium holds that it was in Palestine until just before 614 AD. [5] Its history in Spain can be formally attested to in Spain since the 700s [6].Back to the Gospel of John:And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.So now we have all of the relics of the tomb. The shroud cloths (shown to be sewn together in 1st century Jewish style) and the head cloth rolled up by itself.Now a quick rebuttal to my opponents last spaghetti toss of arguments. These will be brief due to the inclusion of the scientific evidence above:TimelineAs my opponent cannot substantiate solid opposition to the timeline, he uses loaded terms like leap of faith to entice atheists against sound historical sleuthing. As noted, the timeline was backed up with examples of art that would be admissible in court due to the massive congruities.Con seems fixated on the fact that there may have been other "shrouds" If he can give me evidence that any of these other shrouds defy scientific explanation and legally match 6th century art we'll talk.Con attempts to use pareidolia to argue for inauthenticity when the majority of the scientists that were a part of the STURP team were not Christian. Additionally the Vignon Marks visible on eastern Iconography discussed in the previous round show conclusively that the shroud was their model.As for the image distortion, Con would have to show how and when the image was made in order to prove the distortions are necessary. If con has an applicable theory I'm eager to read it.Gospel of Thomas/Image of Edessa- I find it funny that an atheist is essentially using Church authority on scripture for his argument. Coming back to my previous picture:http://www.debate.org... I have anticipated my opponents argument before he even posted it! I already noted that the word used to describe the shroud was tetradiplon which means folded in 4. The picture I provided shows that by folding the shroud in 4 you'd see only the face. Additionally if a golden bejeweled cloth covering all but the face of the shroud was in place (like in the above photo), someone who didn't know any different would assume it was part of the shroud. I thank my opponent for confirming my argument for me.My opponent's statement that there was no shroud present in 1201 is in complete disagreement with the confirmed evidence in 1205 Theodore nephew of Emperor Isaac II wrote to Pope Innocent III requested that the Pope have the shroud returned to Constantinople.My opponent talks about the Knights Templar being tortured in 1307 and that their testimony cannot be trusted. And yet my quote was from a young Frenchman, Arnaut Sabbatier in 1287. Thus my evidence was not extracted under torture. Additionally, my opponent notes that the idea of the Knights worshipping an image of a bearded man existed before they were arrested. There is nothing to say that this image wasn't the shroud. If anything this credits my assertion that the Knights Templar held the shroud.Pray Codex picturehttp://www.debate.org...There are the correct number of fingers visible for what each person is doing. 4 fingers and an thumb on the bottle being poured out, 4 fingers and a thumb on the man on the upper right holding the end of the shroud. Four fingers and a thumb on the woman in the bottom picture.It is pretty obvious that the man on the left is holding the rest of the shroud up and around his neck with the man on the right holding the end of it. They are helping in the burial.As for the red crosses, my opponent has to learn Christian symbolism in art. In Christianity red is associated with the blood of Christ. [7] And a cross is a symbol we use to this day to represent Christ. Thus when one sees a red cross in Christian art it means the blood of Christ.I thank Con for bringing up the Herringbone Pattern. The weave of the fabric is a very distinctive and rare three-over-one twill. [8] The zig-zag line you see on the bottom picture are a rough approximation of what the weave looks like up close.Con attempts to deny the obvious presence of the poker holes because they are thoroughly damning to his argument. I am ready to admit that the artist was of limited capabilities. So let's look at Con's arguments using Con's image:http://www.debate.org...Hands wrong position. Nope - bottom hand over top.No wounds on hands or wrists. Actually the artist shows no wounds anywhere including the obvious spear wound in the side. That the artist did not include those particular wounds is consistent by choosing not to show any wounds whatsoever. No facial hair - if we zoom in on the face:http://www.debate.org...There is obvious short beard hairs. The artist would have been intimately familiar with the bible where the prophesy of Jesus from Isaiah states:I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. - Isaiah 50:6.So the artist showed a beard on Jesus, but one that had little left.So as we can see, the details are not in error, but simply created by an artist of limited ability (though probably still better than me!)Finally my opponent keeps clinging to his C14 test even though I have conclusively shown that through the lack of vanillin present in the flax fibres the C14 cannot be valid, and a peer reviewed paper showing why the C14 was in error. [9]Sorry my friend, no spaghetti stuck this time, better luck next round.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://www.innoval.com...[5] http://st-johns-on-the-hill.org...[6] https://www.shroud.com...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://www.metalog.org...