 |
| Me (A/K/A Evil Atheist Blogger) |
Anyway, I was checking my blog traffic stats today when I noticed that I'm getting hits from a loony Shroud site. Hallelujah! So I clicked on over and found this. I commented back, but they moderate their comments. Can't have atheist remarks on their site, now, can they? Mind you, he's complaining that I blocked his comment. Nonsense. I welcome wingnuts. Come on down!
So go check that out, if this sort of thing interests you. His comment is not logical but he has no clue about this. They never do. If and when I have a moment, I'll rip it up for you guys. Fun! But for now, I have real work to do in the actual, you know, real world.
Welcome wingnuts!
PS: In case you don't want to get cooties by visiting a Shroud web site, I've included the guy's "lost" comment in the comments on this post.
1 comment:
(drumroll) Heeeeeeere's the wingnut comment:
John Klotz has left a new comment on your post "The Shroud of Turin -- and nitwits":
If your atheism is founded on the same reasoning that leads you to post that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake, than you have a problem.
The medieval origin of the Shroud is preposterous. End of story. The image can not be replicated by any process demonstrated to have been used in the Middle Ages, actually, no process has been demonstrated today that can duplicate it.
And the FACT is that the examination of the Shroud by forensic pathologists (are you one, or do you know one?) demonstrate physical conditions that are compatible with today's science, but incompatible with known science until the turn of the last century. That is, until 1900 or so no artist - including DaVinci - had the knowledge of anatomy to accurately depict in minute detail the condition of a tortured, crucified man - right down to analysis the content of his blood indicating stress and torture.
Your medieval faker was not only a genius of not yet invented technology, he/she was a master of not then discovered physical and anatomical processes which could only be meaningfully analyzed again, at the turn of the last century. (1900)
Among the autopsies published on the web is http://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm
There is a plethora (a lot) more information at http://shroud.com
I don't feel sorry for your ignorance, but I do feel sorry for those you mislead. Your arrogance is not merited.
If I am harsh, it just that Shroud deniers who cite medieval origin for the Shroud are right-up there with those proclaiming Obama is a Muslem. He isn't and the Shroud is not a fake.
Post a Comment