Getting D1B involved?JoltinJoe wrote:Dude, don't rain on the parade. You do understand the intended purpose of this thread, don't you?dbackjon wrote:I don't see anywhere in the report that science supports it.
A whole lot of "mays" "could be" and "possibles"
More Science Supports the Shroud
- andy7171
- Firefly

- Posts: 27951
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:12 am
- I am a fan of: Wiping.
- A.K.A.: HE HATE ME
- Location: Eastern Palouse
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
"Elaine, you're from Baltimore, right?"
"Yes, well, Towson actually."
"Yes, well, Towson actually."
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
Methinks Joe might be as much a troll as D1B/Cappy.andy7171 wrote:Getting D1B involved?JoltinJoe wrote:
Dude, don't rain on the parade. You do understand the intended purpose of this thread, don't you?
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
dbackjon wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:
Dude, don't rain on the parade. You do understand the intended purpose of this thread, don't you?
He's been too busy making Valentine Cards for his cats
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
ASUG8 wrote:Methinks Joe might be as much a troll as D1B/Cappy.andy7171 wrote: Getting D1B involved?
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
andy7171 wrote:Getting D1B involved?JoltinJoe wrote:
Dude, don't rain on the parade. You do understand the intended purpose of this thread, don't you?
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
ASUG8 wrote: Methinks Joe might be as much a troll as D1B/Cappy.
The prosecution rests, your honor.![]()
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter

- Posts: 19059
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
dbackjon wrote:I don't see anywhere in the report that science supports it.
A whole lot of "mays" "could be" and "possibles"
Those statements don't seem to stop most of the guys on this board from accepting the newest false, "missing link".
Love your selective scrutiny.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
-
Vidav
- Moderator Team

- Posts: 10804
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:42 pm
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: The Russian
- Location: Missoula, MT
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
There is no such thing as a missing link.SeattleGriz wrote:dbackjon wrote:I don't see anywhere in the report that science supports it.
A whole lot of "mays" "could be" and "possibles"![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Those statements don't seem to stop most of the guys on this board from accepting the newest false, "missing link".
Love your selective scrutiny.
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter

- Posts: 19059
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
Exactly, but it sure doesn't stop Paleontologists from trotting out "something" every few years.Vidav wrote:There is no such thing as a missing link.SeattleGriz wrote:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Those statements don't seem to stop most of the guys on this board from accepting the newest false, "missing link".
Love your selective scrutiny.
Okay, back to the intent of this thread.
Where is that pussy D1B to refute science?
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- CID1990
- Level5

- Posts: 25486
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
- I am a fan of: Pie
- A.K.A.: CID 1990
- Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Re: More Science Supports the Shroud
Yeah we Scots Irish mountain folks have a similar phenomenonJoltinJoe wrote:But we knew that about Genesis already.kalm wrote:
It suggests the bible was written long after events that were detailed in it. In other words it wouldn't be a direct account.
We also know that the Gospels were formally written within the generation of those who actually knew Jesus.
We call them "tall tales" once they get repeated (and subsequently modified) over 50 years or so.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
