Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/06/09
I'd like to point out however that the Shroud is not considered authentic just on the basis of the images formed. There are a variety of other scientific studies that have been conducted on this linen, including assessments of the specific type of weave used (locates to israel), the spores of plants found in the shroud (locate to israel), as well as historical documents that predate midevil times (look up the image of edessa, or the acounts of the crusaders who recount their theft of an identical cloth from Constantinople during the crusaders sack of that city). Other evidence such as the meaning of the horizontal bars across the shroud has only recently been discovered as part of the wooden mechanism used to lift the shroud high as part of a church service in ancient Byzantium.
If you don't believe me, feel free to watch the BBC special investigation called: Shroud - New Evidence - a new production that was released in 2009. You can find the entire series on youtube.
As an aside, I must say that as a longtime Gizmodo reader, I find the antiChristian attitude of this post to be nothing short of offensive (not that you care apparently). You are trivializing my faith as if you are an authority on it.
I certainly find no reason to continue to visit this page or promote it to others if this is your idea of science and objectivity. This isn't the first time you've posted an offensive blurb towards Christians (and others of faith) on this blog.
I ask you, is this a blog about Gizmos or God?
Lastly, as others have pointed out, whether the shroud is authentic or not has no bearing on the Christian faith, except that it is an interesting artifact in that if it is true, it is a sign from God. If it is not authentic, I continue to believe in Christ for the many other reasons that initially brought me to Him in the first place.
Best.
10/08/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
If I'm damned then I'm damned and if God wants to save me then He'll save me.
Don't try to convert me or try to get me to repent or otherwise save me because you can't and it's all in God's hands. I know none of you are God and you cannot refute this.
Now if you don't mind, I'm going to live life as I see fit and if God wants to save me or whatever, I'll leave that to Him.
10/06/09
"Okay so only a few people are the elect that are granted salvation? Oh and there are way more Calvinists in existence than our religion says can be granted salvation in heaven? Oh but of course I'm one of the genuine elect...."
10/06/09
Speaking as a (more or less) Calvinist, who are you referring to that say that only some tiny number of people can be granted salvation? Calvin taught (following the Biblical teachings of Paul) that only some are saved from eternal damnation, and that those who are saved have been chosen and known by God from eternity past. But I don't remember him claiming any specific numerical limit on the number of the saved.
10/07/09
10/06/09
a) Keep you all busy for the next year or so.
b) Put everything you've been complaining about to a structured and organized end.
By the time you all are finished, you can reward yourselves with either a newly released Apple tablet or Windows 8. Those two, not to mention all the many more important advancements that will be made, are being worked on by people who realized that this is a futile argument and only hinders human progress.
10/06/09
10/06/09
Full disclosure: I'm insanely brilliant...or I took an intro Philosophy class in college. That's for you to decide. :-)
10/06/09
You are of Religion A. I am of Religion B. Religion A says that people who are not Religion A will be punished and tormented infinitely and eternally.
So why bother someone of Religion B? Isn't it enough to know that the person of Religion B will be punished and tormented infinitely and eternally? Why bother them when they're still living?
In summary: Some of you have some religious beliefs, others have other beliefs. Live and let live.
10/06/09
However, there is a certain brand of enjoyment in looking down on the other religions and telling them that their wayward pagan faiths will only earth them passage into my religion's torture chamber when they can't meet divine quota. Not only does it make me feel big, it scores beau coup points with the sluttier members of our sect.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
Christians should respect others who see the world differently, even if they think that Christianity is tantamount to believing in fairies and goblins. Yes, a Christian should be proud of his or her faith, but at the same time, a Christian should know not to judge others, even if others are judging you.
Experience that freedom of faith and you'll see that a Christian can embrace science fully without giving up an ounce of his or her beliefs.
10/06/09
10/06/09
It is abundantly clear that not a single commenter here, nor the author, knows the history of the shroud, the studies and findings, the so far unexplainable intricacies this mock shroud does not remotely begin to possess, or really any knowledge relating to why the shroud is significant or a mystery.
Yes, it is still a mystery, even to modern science, and no, this is not in any way, other than visually, a replica of the shroud. The shroud has been studied on the microscopic and nuclear scales with significant, legitimately interesting findings, that this does not begin to touch on.
Learn. It's fun and you sound a lot less stupid, religious believer or not. Again, I am not religious, though I value deep research in all things. I'm surprised this retarded, grade school level experiment made it to Gizmodo. What a joke.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
Like Karen Armstrong says: "We are talking far too much about God these days, and most of what we say is facile".
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
it just so happen that it's also "Anti-Christian"
If he did Pro Christian related gadget posts, you wouldn't mind, but I'm sure some other people would...
You know what a blog is right?
If you're not happy, I'm sure there's a blog about Christianity somewhere on the vast sea that is the internet
10/06/09
A) Pointlessly anti-Christian in a way that doesn't really make any sense, and is totally gratuitous and unnecessary
B) Which leads to a thread full of pompous 15-year olds saying "OMGZORZ people who believe in God are STUPID. They're SUICIDE BOMBERS."
C) AND THIS IS A GADGET BLOG. There's room for personal writing and theme posts, but really?? REALLY?
D) REALLY?
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
Knee jerk reactions make you look like an asshat
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
Me, I'd rather stay away from both sides and just be informed and educated. Atheism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same linked dyad. In order to be one you have to project the other as so indescribably stupid that it can validate your own worldview.
Which, of course leads us back to right here, right now.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
If I take I-70 from Denver to St. Louis, and someone else takes I-70 from Columbus to St. Louis, it doesn't mean Denver=Columbus, even if we do end up in the same place.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
What's your point.
10/06/09
10/06/09
Science is generally not about single pieces of evidence that prove all. It's frequently about accumulating a mass of independent evidence that leads to a conclusion.
10/06/09
The difficulty is that the Bible doesn't come with chapter headings that proclaim "This is a Parable", "This is a Metaphor", so people that DO believe in it are left to their own devices to figure out what should be literal, and what should be interpreted... and every sect views that differently, even if they share the same writings as canon.
It's true it doesn't "prove" anything - but it was never intended to do that. It DOES suggest certain historical events that have been confirmed by other sources, but this neither confirms nor denies the truth of its more mystical tales. It does help put them in context, however, whether they actually happened or not.
The Bible isn't a bad read at all... since it's obvious you haven't read it before, I highly recommend it. You don't have to believe any of it - but it would make you sound less ignorant when you critique it.
10/06/09
It does, however, mean that the above attempt to duplicate the shroud via supposedly "contemporary" techniques is still too advanced by at least a couple hundred years, and Luigi Garlaschelli should have KNOWN that before he started, so several hundred points off for even more intellectual fraud beyond the silly idea of "proving" anything at all about the shroud itself. The information on the second examination was made public a few years ago, and I've seen it a couple of times on the History channel now, in addition to print references.
10/06/09
Even the second round of dating tests which pushed the possible age back another couple hundred years didn't make it "old enough"... but they were far more intellectually honest than this article.
10/06/09
You're correct... but that assumes that your "independent evidence" is legitimate, unbiased, and used to reach a valid logical conclusion.
This "experiment" was none of those things.
10/06/09
10/06/09
While they may now have evidence that the shroud is a possible fake, I don't think this will stop anyone from believing what they want.
My point, just reject their (the atheists and agnostics) beliefs just like they reject yours. Now everyone is happy. :)
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
Not quite correct... Athiests and agnostics (especially agnostics) don't have *religious* beliefs. They have plenty of other beliefs. And the argument could be made that athiests have very strong religious beliefs... i.e. the belief that there is no god.
10/06/09