Torcautes 🇻🇦

@MatiasyZzZ Esto o es una referencia muy buena o una referencia muy mala, no sé.

Como cristiano sé que Jesús habría preferido donar ese dinero a la gente que lo necesita.

@jackunheard I was almost aborted 'cause I could have put myself and my mother at risk, but a determined doctor said no, and helped my mother through it all, and here I am.

Justin Bieber was almost aborted and his mom choosing life resulted in him being able to praise Jesus Christ in front of billions. Here is how the demonic left responded:

@FeelsGuy2003 This is Saint Moses the Black, but I don't understand why I see so few tributes to him.

“We wuz church fathers”

@molochfan @KuroKamiii @enesovat22 The study does not use advanced chemical techniques or compare the area with other parts of the Shroud, so it does not conclusively rule it out, not even remotely. It's not funny anymore, try different jokes, dude. This will be the last thing I say until new evidence emerges.

@molochfan @KuroKamiii @enesovat22 The invisible weaving is designed precisely to perfectly mimic the original weave, including patterns such as the herringbone. Textile experts have noted that this type of repair is extremely difficult to detect even under a microscope, especially in small samples.

Christian evidence vs Muslim evidence

@molochfan @KuroKamiii @enesovat22 If at any time you have new, compelling evidence, let me know.

@molochfan @KuroKamiii @enesovat22 It doesnt look like we're going to see eye to eye. I respect your position, but I still believe that the balance of evidence, including features of the image that remain unexplained by medieval sources, favors a greater age.

@molochfan @KuroKamiii @enesovat22 Having said all that, it should be noted that “research has shown time and again that, in fact, the sample was not contaminated” is an exaggeration. The study provides evidence that there was no visible coarse debris, but its not conclusive proof that the 88 dating is flawless.

I'll respond to all of your posts at once because it's easier. I'll just copy paste my old posts where I can because I addressed most of these already and I don't want to waste time. Your premise is wrong, research has shown time and time again that the sample was not in fact contaminated. nature.com/articles/s4049… There was this study published this year that showed that two of the AZ fragments are flax, z twisted, in a 3/1 herringbone twill with A1A even showing the herringbone reversal matching the main cloth, thread count also matches published figures for the Shroud. Shows no cotton, no dye, no coating, no repair material and no contamination under SEM that would affect a date. Keep in mind that the z twist is unusual for flax (Egyptian linen was s spun, which had already made a 1st century placement, well, dubious) and the combination of z twist, high thread count, and a 3/1 herringbone twill points to a more technologically advanced period than the archaeological controls. Now, to drag an actual 1st century cloth up to a approx 1325 radiocarbon date, you don't need just a little contamination, you need the sampled region to be roughly 60-80% younger material by carbon mass. So that's not some sorta invisible mend but replacing most of the sample with new thread, and that's something the two professional textile experts present at the cutting could not have missed. The notion that a trace patch can do it doesn't hold, the physics of isotope mixing forbid it. So we have a date = 690 BP, quoted 1σ = 16-31 years. If I decide to be maximally generous and blow the error out to a full 3σ using the scatterbased value: 690 +- 93 BP you get roughly 597-783 BP which is calibrates to about AD 1220-1410. No matter how you look at it, every point is still late medieval. If you want to drag the date to the 1st century you have to cross around 1,260 radiocarbon years (690 BP to 1950 BP). Against a 1σ of 16-31 years, thats a 40 to 80 sigma gap. So if you inflate the error for heterogeneity it buys you a factor of maybe 2, what it doesn't do is buy you a factor of 40. Also, the widest published pair is 2.4σ, not 3. You only get 3 by switching to the smaller internal counting errors or a favorable raw data treatment. As for your alternative methods, they all come from the same man who has to invent a new, untested alternative method for dating the shroud every two years or so. And that man IS Fanti and his associates no less. Most of his citations are his own prior work. WAXS was literally invented for the sake of dating the Shroud. Regarding the WAXS study, it was not a fresh sample and this is stated in the WAXS study itself, the thread they measured was taken in proximity to the 1988 radiocarbon area which the corner corresponding to the feet of the frontal image, near the so called Raes sample and it has a notoriously poor chain of custody. But the main flaw is methodological, radiocarbon is a nuclear clock, whereas this measures how muhc cellulose's crystal structure has degraded and it speeds up as temperature and humidity rise. You should read what the paper actually says, it essentially concedes that it only holds under the condition that the cloth was kept at an average secular temperature of 20.0-22.5C and relative humidity of 55-75% for thirteen centuries of unknown history. The Chambery fire of 1532 alone makes this impossible, let alone the previous centuries of supposed unknown history. The reason why this isn't raken seriously is because the output is essentially a free parameter of the assumed thermal history, most of which is unknown. If you pick benign conditions, you get ancient, if you pick harsh conditions, you get medieval. Mind you, these run on much thinner sampling than the C14 studies, Fanti works off a sub millimetre thread but that suddenly becomes alright when it tells you what you wanna hear by adjusting its assumptions. STURP was one access event almost 50 years ago. Lasted a couple of days? Wowza. It took us over 30 years, 40-50 highly specialized studies and countless samples to figure out how Roman self healing concrete worked. Was it divine? The Damascus steel analogy doesn't work because you said so? The burden of proof is on me to explain YOUR extraordianry claim? And which Gospel does it match? The Synoptics which say that there's one shroud or the Gospel of John which says that the body was bound with multiple sheets plus an additional one for the head? I'd wager the person who created this forgery leaned towards the former. I agree with the pigment part. Most of the serious hypotheses predict no pigment, ie Garlaschelli and Rogers. 3D encoding is nothing special, it falls out of any mechanism where coloration tracks cloth to body distance, ie contact, vapor, relief transfer... 0.2nm superficiality was replicated by Lazzaro's UV rute, it's an original formation signaturer of a surface chemical process. Photographic negative is what a contact imprint naturally produces. For whatever reason you say that these properties defy known capabilities, and then state that STURP favored cellulose oxidation/dehydration. This is what Maillar and contact degradation produce. NOthing is miraculous or technologically impossible about it. Blood is a very dubious claim, but I'll grant it, although bilirubin wsa mostly an ad hoc save to explain its unnatural redness. Pollen claim is a bogus one from an author who notoriously authenticated the forged Hitler diaries, his samples couldn't be independenty verified and he had no rigorous controls for sample contamination. > Burden of proof Absolute lol > Your entire argument revolves around “it can't be reproduced” or “rhere are disagreements" Not my point at all. But hey, if that's how you understood it, who am I to shit on your parade.

@molochfan @KuroKamiii @enesovat22 The archaeological controls are very different (plain weave, s-twist). Using them to argue that “the Shroud is more advanced” is interesting (a bit), but it doesnt prove that it is medieval; it could simply indicate a different technique.

@molochfan @KuroKamiii @enesovat22 The study does not provide any new radiocarbon dates. It is merely a visual and textile analysis. It does not address the central question: Is the actual age of the linen medieval or earlier? It's a basic point, and the debate over the Shroud of Turin