Work which is has not be reviewed is not at the highest level of integrity by definition. I already acknowledge the issue with carbon dating. However there is still a complete failure to provide samples via proper channel to confirm the data of pro-Turin supporters. An argument which questions the carbon dating which goes on to confirm a pro-turin view is an argument from ignorance. There is a difference between acknowledging repair samples versus putting forward a date which has no support at all based on unprofessional conduct which can not provided evidence the sample acquired by unprofessional conduct are authentic.
Actually there are a number of refutation of these views. Hence the need for carbon dating. There is also issues with the dominance of medieval weaving rather than antiquity weaving. The rest of you points are arguments from ignorance thus are fallacious. X is true because science can not provide an answer at this time is not an a valid argument. Bring up the word scientific when you can remove yourself from the concept of "divine matters" since science never addresses this concept. God of the gaps is also fallacious.
Sorry, but you go your merry way I shall go mine. When I hear “science never addresses the supernatural” I shrug. What it says to me is more to “they have no natural explanation for something whatsoever so they pull out that we-are-not-in-the-God-business defense card.” Another favorite such as the scientist who witnessed a wooden statue of the Virgin Mary exuding blood (and, no, I cannot find the original source of this) who responded “there is no evidence of the supernatural here, we just do not have the natural explanation for it yet. Some matters take more time to uncover the evidence.”
In other words --- no matter what God may put before man as signs of His existence, there will always be those who demand more, too often because they simply (imo) do not want to accept. 200,000 Egyptians who saw Mary on top of that Christian cathedral in Zeitoun 1968 all mass hallucinated. But of course!
I will do my own top post on the Shroud of Turin sometime in the future. I do not have the time to research enough links for your curiosity, sorry. But for you to suggest all these scientific studies lack peer-review or have a bias, well, that can be proven totally wrong. They are in great abundance and I will do the research for you.
Secondly, do not get all hung up over the carbon dating matter from 1988 --- that is --- if you really care to know the truth about this image. The other amazing qualities, or should I say FACTS, about this image that science has uncovered is what really stands out. Maybe science won’t utter that forbidden word, but I shall. These facts cry out “divine.” When nothing in the natural can possibly accomplish that evidence, it is no leap of faith to render it “supernatural.” It is just so sad so many do not want to believe, but the Shroud is just one of a myriad of signs God has given us to 1) bolster the faith of the believer, or 2) challenge the skeptic. IMO.
PS – The “God of the Gaps” theory (a.k.a. irreducible complexity) is totally logical and authentic. You want us to accept that an eyeball, a nervous system, a spinal cord, a liver, a brain, a knee joint, and on and on and on --- all just sprang up on their own without any intelligent designer --- just by chance --- because Richard Dawkins says so (*) --- and we are to categorize that as “science?” Peer-reviewed of course.
“How simply explained on the principle of the natural selection of successive slight variations in the diverging descendants from a single progenitor!” – Charles Darwin ----------- Slight variations? It would take more than a “slight variation” to change a man’s hand into the wing of a bat. Why is everything suddenly “simply explained” by natural selection?
Evolution Religion | Fear Death and Hell
FYI. 900+ of your scientist “peers” who probably have the same issues as those of us who are “God of the gaps” proponents.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*)
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” (Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker)
“the illusion of design” --- very convincing and scientific.
