Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 57187

So many idiots here with their main stream liberal media straw fed to them while they browse the interwebs.
It's cute, but also insanely pathetic.

Oh! The shroud is 1000 years old!

Oh wait! The fibers tested from it by the ACTUAL scientists who drew the data found them to date back to Biblical times!

Oh wait! The coin prints found on the cloth were coined back in the times of Pontius Pilate!

Oh wait!

You guys don't care to actually get information from the source! Let's get it from someone with an agenda! Brilliant!

Fireproof, worldofwarcraft 31 Comments [1/30/2009 1:37:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By:
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Hammurabi

Anyone can make astounding, improbable claims if they aren't required to back them up with any evidence. What imaginary, invisible "fact"-hole did you pull these gems from?

1/30/2009 1:40:10 AM

Punchybird

No they didn't.
There are no coin prints.

You really don't get information from the source. I have no agenda.

1/30/2009 1:44:41 AM

DevilsChaplain

Well, the weird thing about the Shroud is that we don't know if it's from Biblical times, which it may very well be. There were, in fact, newer threads woven into the Shroud to keep it patched up and held together and when they dated that section, the newer threads threw off the dating and placed it in the Middle Ages. In order to date a piece that was not tampered with, they'd have to get access to the Shroud one more time, which the Vatican has refused. (However, the coin thing is utter bullshit.)

1/30/2009 1:50:10 AM

Illuminatalie

Shroud! Brilliant! Yahooey! Whee!

1/30/2009 1:56:06 AM

Jadehawk

it's an easily replicable fraud, just like the 4 Jesus-foreskins, and enough splinters of the true cross to make a whole forest.

idiot.


1/30/2009 2:08:52 AM

WMDKitty

The Shroud is a medieval FAKE.

1/30/2009 3:10:01 AM

DaMentalFunism

Oh! Ponitus Pilate is 1000 years older than your claimed age of the Shroud!

Oh! Scientists (real or imagined) who support your argument are ACTUAL scientists!

Oh! Nothing here makes any sense!

1/30/2009 3:13:21 AM

Old Viking

Another WOWser offering a glimpse into a befuddled mind.

1/30/2009 3:22:28 AM

jesus

nevermind the carbon dating, it's easy to prove it's a fake, cover your face in paint, wrap a sheet around your head and you'll be amazed to find that a near perfect image of a face doesn't appear on the sheet, it should be distorted, but europeans in the middle ages were dumb and didnt realize that.

1/30/2009 5:28:49 AM

werewolf

I no speak English so good so I no understand what you try to say. Maybe good idea to have point.

1/30/2009 6:59:47 AM

Paschal Wagner

Baldrick: Moving on to relics, we've got shrouds, from Turin; er, wine from the wedding at Cana; splinters from the cross, and, of course, there's stuff made by Jesus in his days in the carpentry shoppe: got pipe racks, coffee tables, coatstands, bookends, crucifixes, a nice cheeseboard, fruit bowls, waterpoof sandals... Oh, I haven't finished that one yet.

Percy: But this is disgraceful, My Lord! All of these are obviously fake!

Blackadder: Hah, yes!

Percy: But, but how will people be able to tell the difference between these and the real relics?

Blackadder: Well, they won't! That's the point!

Percy: Well, you won't be able to fool everyone. Look: I have here a true relic.

Blackadder: What is it?

Percy: It is a bone from the finger of Our Lord. It cost me 31 pieces of silver.

Blackadder: Good lord. Is it real?

Percy: It is, My Lord. Baldrick, you stand amazed.

Baldrick: I am -- I thought they only came in boxes of ten.

1/30/2009 8:31:52 AM

David B.

The actual paper can be read here. No agenda, and the labs that dated the samples found that they date back 600-700 years.

@DevilsChaplain:

The Benford-Marino hypothesis is not supported by much (any?) evidence, that would only be possible through further sampling and testing of the Shroud. To be honest, I can understand the Church's reluctance to allow this, however much testing is done, there will always be people on one or other side of the debate calling the result into question, hence requiring another sample, until we're left with the "Turin Handkerchief".

1/30/2009 10:35:55 AM

DinDC

OH!

OH WAIT!

Oh Wait!

Oh wait...

(Still waiting for Jesus)


1/30/2009 10:42:43 AM

aaa

Bullshit.

1/30/2009 11:07:27 AM



Oh! You're a moron!

Oh wait! You're a blithering idiot!

Oh wait! You're dumb as a box of hair!

Oh wait! You haven't got the brain of a retarded jackass!

1/30/2009 11:32:13 AM

redfergus

Is this arse still contending that the Turin shroud is real?

For Christ's sake. What a jerk.

fergus

1/30/2009 11:36:03 AM

BrendanJD

I dunno why the shroud is such a big deal. There are so many other Jesus artifacts that peoples claim to have, such as:

-His foreskin.
-The gold given to him by the wiseman.
-His umbilical cord.
-The Spear of Destiny.
-The nails of the crucifixion.
-The cup from the last supper.

Of course, the real question is who wants to touch a 2000 year old foreskin?

1/30/2009 11:50:01 AM

David B.

@BrendanJD:

Hell, most fundies would get on their knees and kiss it!

1/30/2009 11:56:16 AM

FMG

The Turin Shroud?

Is not a 1000 years old even. 1260 to 1390 seems to be around the date for its creation...

Its a fake... A really dumb fake that people still "bandy around" proving the stupidity of man.

Did you there are so many relics of the true cross that its more than one "punishment cross" could give up in wood...


1/30/2009 12:38:50 PM

Vince

Actually, there has been some recent scientific evidence that points to an improper date for the Shroud back when it was dated. It has to do with the corner of the Shroud they used to date it likely being a medieval patch-job, giving a possible bad date. There was a Discovery special on it that covered the scientific issues pretty well.

That being said, a possibly incorrect date does not:
A) Mean that the Shroud is from Biblical times by default,
B) Mean that the Shroud is from the Jesus of the Bible,
C) Mean that Jesus is the Son of God, or
D) Mean that God exists.



1/30/2009 4:20:01 PM

tracer

This reminds me of the arguments over the right way to spec a Warrior for DPS, on other parts of the WoW forums.

"Your spec is horribad!"
"Your [sic] an idiot!"
"I hope your guild kicks you out before you do any more damage!"
"Read what I wrote, moron!"

No citation of sources, no reasoned calculations, just assertions from On High and insults for anybody who disagrees.

1/30/2009 11:05:40 PM

rw23

Going along with the claims of physical historical versimilitude regarding items of religious significance, I'd just like to point out that Jesus's foreskin must by now be of sufficient circumference as to surround the Vatican.

1/31/2009 1:50:07 AM

Miles

Oh wait! It's all a big hoax!

Oh wait! Fireproof is a fucktard, and expects us to believe that it doesn't have an agenda!

2/1/2009 12:15:55 AM

Darwin's Lil' Girl

Let's get it from someone with an agenda! Brilliant!

Which is why we should never ask fundies!

2/1/2009 1:52:31 AM

Ms. Wit in Spades

Didn't Jesus exist 2000 years ago...just wondering...
lol, from finger prints to coin prints, we've really come far
Why am I waiting for no reason?
lol, that's not true...We just want information. Last I checked Darwin had no agenda...besides the one he wrote in

2/1/2009 1:56:24 AM
1 2