Shroud of Turin

True bacterial biofilms need a decent amount of moisture to develop. As far as I'm aware the conditions the shroud are kept in are anything but overly moist.Secondly everything that has been radiocarbon-dated has a "covering" of bacteria on the surface, so all dating would be wrong. Thing is, it isn't. So why should bacteria on the surface of the shroud meand that the the result is wrong, but for everything else it's OK?Didn't I also read somewhere that analysis of the pigment which makes up the image show it to be one which wasn't available until around the 13th Century?

I thought that lichen were a fungus and an alga in a true symbiotic relationship. As far as I'm aware bacteria don't tend to do this sort of thing. As to other things which have been radiocarbon dated and given results consistent with their known history, many natural fabrics have been assessed this way. I would assume that the behaviour of bacteria on the surface of these are behaving in a similar manner to those on the shroud.

Willowtree, how can you put any faith in the argument that Scott put forward, based on the description of Moses' face shining? What does that actually mean? How does he get from that to a conclusion that the resurrection must have involved Jesus shining like a Belisha beacon? My three year old's face was shining on Christmas morning, but he didn't leave any fabric marks!!! Cos saying that someone's face is shining can have all sorts of interpretations and to jump from that to the imprinting of an image on the cloth is ludicrous.The evidence I've seen to date suggests that the shroud isn't authentic and, to be honest, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Why? Because whether it is authentic or not doesn't alter the fact that I believe that Jesus was sent by God to die for my sins and I don't need a supernatural imprint on a bit of linen to continue in that belief. If you had to finally accept that the shroud wasn't authentic, would that destroy your faith? Does your faith actually hinge on this one point?I have to admit that I'm interested in the shroud and it's history and finding out more about it, but I'm certainly not pinning my faith on it!

I'm not suggesting for a moment that your faith rests on the authenticity of the Tuirin shroud, but I don't understand why you would throw out all the evidence against it being authentic. Most of the arguments against the radiocarbon dating that I've seen so far show a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to radiocarbon dating and science in general, even failure of logical thinking.You have said, however, that if Scott's faith doesn't rest on it then neither does yours. What if he changes his mind and declares that his faith does rest on it - are you going to change yours? I don't think you will. From what I've seen, your faith certainly doesn't rest solely on other people's opinions, it's a strong, heartfelt belief. However, in trying to rationalise this belief, you've been quoting pseudoscience which weakens your arguments. You will NEVER be able to prove the existence of God or the reality of the ressurection because both need faith, according to Jesus. You don't need faith if you have proof. For example, I don't have faith in my cooker cooking my dinner because I know for a fact that it will, barring powercuts. Faith is all about sticking to a belief without there being any proof. I'm not talking about blind faith here.There are certain bits and pieces of the Bible which the vast majority of Christians and Christian churches accept as being unlikely or erroneous, based on the fact that they were written by ordinary people like you and me who make mistakes all the time. I wonder if its time to stop trying to prove the validity of some of these dodgy bits and concentrate on the central nugget of the Bible - Jesus died for us so that we can be forgiven for our sins.The theory about the scorching of the shroud by a mysterious holy light falls at the very first hurdle. OK, so some passages talk about a brilliant light when God appears, but others don't - how about the burning bush? How about the baptism of Jesus when the main effect seemed to be a dove descending? Even if there was a brilliant light, you can't say that that's what "scorched" the shroud. How often have you seen brilliant light scorch something? You would have to invoke a special type of brilliant light. So many steps in the theory depend on conclusions thought up only to bolster the argument ie sloppy thinking.I think I might be tempted to sell my PhD thesis too if you can get that amount of cash for it. Sadly, very few people would be interested in it and, to be honest when I look back I can see so many "holes" in it that I think I should keep it under wraps!