intelligent design, or just stupid muddle?
Posted by James on January 5, 2011 · 6 Comments
Question by synopsis: intelligent design, or just stupid muddle?
if you discount the reliability of carbon dating (as you must do for creationist positions to make any sense at all) then the only real objection to the turin shroud disappears.
if creation science prove anything at all, it proves that the turin shroud is genuine, and that the roman catholic church is the one true church.
http://www.shroud.com/homespan.htm
so why aren’t all creation scientists roman catholics? (apart from the fact that the catholic church won’t admit them that is).
it wouldn’t be because they are too confused / insincere / dishonest to work out the full implication of their own position – would it?
i see we have some very confused historians here.
the main evidence for the authenticity of the shroud would be that it shows a body crucified by being nailed through the wrists. the medieval tradition always showed the nails piercing the palms, it was not discovered until the middle of the last century that this cannot work.
crucifixion by piercing through the wrists was unknown to the middle ages. if the cloth is not genuine, did the artist have divine inspiration?
Best answer:
Answer by Atheist Machine
Stupid stupid stupid stupid muddle.
What do you think? Answer below!
evolution IS the intelligence of life’s design.
Putting aside the carbon dating evidence does not automatically authenticate the Shroud of Turin. And in any case, the whole shroud business has nothing to do with the reformation. Bit of a muddle, I’d say.
Creation “Science” / ID lacks any internal consistency. You apply a principle in one place, then handwave when it refutes a fundamental assertion. The extent of inconsistencies is astounding.
The date of the shroud isn’t the only problem with it’s authenticity:
Walter C. McCrone, head of a Chicago research institute and a specialist in authenticating art objects, examined the shroud. He found a pale, gelatin-based substance speckled with particles of red ochre on fibers from the part of the cloth that supposedly showed the figure of Christ. He also found that fibers from the “wounds” had stains, not of blood, but of particles of a synthetic vermilion developed in the Middle Ages. He said the practice of painting linen with gelatin-based temperas began in the late thirteenth century and was common in the fourteenth. He concluded that a fourteenth century artist had forged the shroud.
You lost the argument at “if you discount” and that “Creation Science”.
Carbon dating is reliable up to around 70,000 years. Even with out that there are many other inconsistencies with the shroud, such as the face more closely resembles artistic style of the time rather than a true projection, and that it was a confessed hoax.
“Creation Science” is not. The level of science in creationism is barely at a 3rd or 4th grade level. It is totally based on it’s followers believing it to be true and grabbing at anything that might give it some evidence, even if it is a totally unwarranted twisting of the facts. If it were “science”, it would make its hypothesis and then present evidence and data to back it up, however it relies on trying to object to the current, well supported theory by using principles and tools that it clearly does not understand.
pbs.org nova;judgement day