Ere Pumparse ... 537You obviously do not live in the USA. Try conversing with a Southern Baptist some...
Ere Pumparse ... 538They read the Bible in braille you mean? Time came first. And to discuss the sequence in which the created universe was put together after that is to focus on time which is itself...
You're making one, crucial mistake -- you're determining his approximate age based on the photographic negative and not on the shroud itself.
Nothing can be determined from the Shroud about his appearance or his age. It is only when we take a photograph and look at the negative -- of what is already a negative -- that we see a clear positive image from which we can deduce certain things.
The first ever photograph of the Shroud was taken in 1898, and it was only then that it dawned on people the image on the shroud was a negative.
As for forgery, it has been proved over and over again in serious, *peer-reviewed* scientific journals that the artefact is neither a fake nor fluorescence spectrometry, and direct microscopic viewing have all confirmed that the image is not a painting or a forgery. The image isn't even discernible from 2 or 3 feet -- it is only when one stands right back that one sees it. How would the artist paint such a thing -- dab a bit on and run back to view it? And it has been established that there is no capillary "travel" of the image from the tips of the fibres where it resides further inwards towards the main body of the cloth. Can you expalin this?
I have to tell you that your idea of a fake or a forgery lingers on only in the popular imagination and in the pseudo-science of cranks. It is no longer seriously considered plausible in scientific circles.
The tables really are turned in this debate when it is shown that it is you and not I who has to appeal to fantastic, preposterous and incredible notions to back up your argument. -- + His Holiness Pope Pompous XVIII
"This is all Blarney!" -- Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth I
