Shroud of Turin

I want to note that pro is making out the word Shroudies, to be a negative thing. I've only ever seen the term used by people who believe in the authenticity of the shroud. They use it the same way Bronies use the word Brony. It's just a loving way to refer to each other. I resent the cheap attempt at gaining a conduct point. Our playful banter is one thing, but a cheap attempt at conduct points is quite another. We have 2 different competing theories here. One theory is the cloth is a fraud. The other is that it's the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Let's examine the theories side by side to see whats more likely. Scientific Dating Let's see which scientific dating method is more accurate. Cons theory- an early 14th century artwork backed by C14 tests done by 3 different laboratories, that is accurate to within 30 years. Pro's theory- The cloth being dated using vanillin, shows the shroud dates back to the time of Christ. When I challenge him on this what does he say? Well let's look. "I agree that you cannot reliably date a cloth using vanillin. " That's my opponents words from the last round. Historical Dating Let's see which historical dating method is superior. Con's Theory-The Shroud can be reliably traced back to 1349. Historians pretty much unanimously agree on this. My opponent agrees on this. Here is a quote of his from round 2. " The Shroud can be reliably traced in Western Europe back to 1349 When Geoffroi de Charny was recorded as having possession of it. " Pro's Theory- The Shroud is the only piece of clothe that dates back to Jesus's time period that has ever fully survived, despite exposure to air, fire, war and other elements that shrouds sealed off from those things never experienced. His theory involves conspiracies involving the Knights Templar (aka the people blamed for everything before the Mason's came along), a coverup by the scientific community etc. Convergence Pro claims it's just a coincidence that historians agree with scientists on the original date of the shroud. I disagree. I think the fact that 2 different fields dating the shroud to the same time period, actually confirm it's date even more solidly. Why hasn't the image been reproduced? I haven't brought this forward, for good reason. It doesn't matter. Similar looking images have been reproduced using methods available in that time period. It doesn't matter. In order to really reproduce the image you'd have to first create the image and then second wait 700 years to see what it looks like. My opponent is asking me to recreate an image and then age it 700 years to prove his theory wrong. This is an unfair thing to ask. Obviously 700 year old paintings look significantly different then fresh paintings. Peer Reviewed Journals My opponent try's to use the term peer reviewed journals to create some sort of superior credibility for his position. When he say's peer reviewed he isn't kidding. STURP, has their findings in several peer reviewed journals. Journals that include other things such scientific studies proving Young Earth Creationism. I have no problem with looking at STURP's findings, but no they don't get extra credibility because of publishing their stuff in Christian Science journals. There is nothing wrong with these journals, but it should be recognized they have a slight bias. Card Stacking Fallacy and Genetic Fallacy I've provided plenty of evidence that the shroud is a fraud. It's all been dismissed as coming from the discredited McCrone. My opponent is saying that any evidence coming from McCrone shouldn't be considered because it came from McCrone. This is the genetic fallacy (dismissing evidence, because of who showed it to you). McCrone is one of the few people in the world to actually study the shroud first hand, so it's really convenient to just outright dismiss the evidence he brings to the table. What makes him discredited anyway? Oh yeah that's right, he brought evidence forward that disagrees with STURP's conclusions. The second he brought the evidence to their attention, they demanded he sign a confidentiality statement. When he refused, they kicked him off the team. My opponent has used the card stacking fallacy. He's over emphasized any evidence for his position being true, while any inconvenient evidence is either from a discredited person or test etc. . . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Because he uses the genetic and card stacking fallacy, his case probably appears a little stronger then what it actually is. Hopefully that doesn't fool anybody reading. A Few Additional Responses "I find it funny that Con should quote about the head cloth from the Gospel of John when I just used this exact quote in my previous argument. The Sudarium of Oviedo both answers the question of the head cloth and provide support to my argument. I once again thank Con for confirming my arguments for me. " Actually it doesn't support your argument. If he had separate piece of cloth for his head than his body no facial image would have been left on the shroud. So having one piece of cloth for the head and a separate for the body hurts your argument. The shroud not being a bunch of strips like the bible states also hurts your argument. "Gospel of Thomas/Image of Edessa- I find it funny that an atheist is essentially using Church authority on scripture for his argument. " That's because you used the gospel of Thomas as proof. The portion of the gospel that pro uses as proof is Jesus stating what type of clothe he was wearing. The description doesn't match the one he was in the grave in. Jesus spoke of jewels on the clothe in the passage. So he's clearly not talking about something he was buried in. Pro is trying to say jewels were on the image of Edessa, but this is beside the point. Jesus was talking about cloths he was wearing not clothes he used to wear after stuff was added onto it. "As for the red crosses, my opponent has to learn Christian symbolism in art. In Christianity red is associated with the blood of Christ. 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. " This is the same B. S. That conspiracy theorists use. I could interpret the supposed symbolism on that image in 100 different ways that are convenient to my side. I have actual evidence though, so I won't. It's really not that much different then folding up the dollar bill in a way that proves 9/11 was an inside job. . http://homageofreason.blogspot.com... Conclusion I've built my case on scientific evidence and research by mainstream historians. My opponent has used pseudo science and history revisionists to build his. When you look past my opponents pseudo science, history revisionism and logical fallacies, than you can see his case is very weak. The shroud of Turin neither proves not disproves the resurrection of Jesus whether it's authentic or not. There isn't this imagined bias he think's exists in the mind of atheists. I just want people to know that me disproving the shroud has in no way disproved the divinity of Jesus, and I recognize this fact. I'm glad that me and Geogeer could have this debate.