Another Shroud of Turin ‘debunking’ (yawn)
Here’s a good lesson, I guess, in the reasoning skills of agenda-driven atheists: the fact that a reasonably identical copy of the Shroud of Turin can be made by human techniques somehow proves beyond doubt that the original Shroud of Turin is a fake, a forgery. Similarly, the fact that reasonably identical copies of fifty dollar bills can be made by “at home” techniques no doubt proves beyond doubt that even mint-printed fifty dollar bills are fakes, rather than genuine legal tender.
What’s been accomplished here, really? Okay, a scientist — commissioned by an atheistic debunking group, by the way, so you know that this was a totally objective study — and a few assistants were able to craft a reasonable copy of the Shroud of Turin, using chemicals and techniques that would apparently have been readily accessible in the Middle Ages. To be fair, this does prove that the Shroud could be a forgery, and that the carbon dating done on it which placed its age to be somewhere between 800 and 900 years was in fact correct.
But equally, it doesn’t prove that the Shroud is necessarily a forgery. It proves a possibility, not an actuality.
There’s also the matter of what is left unexplained in all this, including the fact that the Shroud was for years (centuries, maybe?) exposed to an environment in which candles were constantly burning (which could maybe skew the carbon dating results just a wee bit), and the fact that the Shroud contains plant images and pollen which date (and locate) it to pre-8th century Jerusalem. And there’s also the fact that the Shroud was damaged in a fire and was subsequently repaired with patches…several hundred years ago.
But our goodly champions of reason assure us that the Shroud must be fake, because someone else was able to produce a fake copy of it.
If the good reader will excuse me, I have some original documents that I need to prove are fake; a trip to the photocopier is, I think, warranted.
(hat tip)
You are attacking a strawman, and acknowledge that you are doing so, yet continue to do it.
Actually, I’m engaging the matter directly, though I am using a couple of instances of hyperbole to drive home just how absurd the conclusions being drawn from this experiment are.
Because basically, the conclusion that’s being pushed out there is that because a reasonably accurate copy of the Shroud was made, the Shroud itself must necessarily be a fake. That’s exactly like saying that because one can forge a reasonably accurate $50 bill, the $50 I have in my wallet at present must necessarily be a fake.
It just doesn’t sound as stupid. But that’s part of the problem.