Evicence VS Faith, March 8, 2004

By	Avid Reader (Franklin, Tn) - See all my reviews

Kouznetsov claims that a fire "changed the atoms" of the cloth and that he has validated its authenticity. THis Russian has been thoroughly discredited. He's been a Creationist since 1983 and attempted to "prove" his theories ever since. Fraud has been the hallmark of his work. References include documents and books that do not exist; he invented outside sources to support his findings. He was then declared persona non grata in Russia for claiming that several non-existent Russian museums provided him with old cloths that he then dated. Yet this fraudulent scheme laid the groundwork for his claim that the shroud is original.

He found his calling among those who rejected the findings of the original dating. The cloth HAD to be a relic - not a shrewd creation from the early Middle Ages when it first appeared in history. This is yet another chapter in the dreary process of "proving" Christianity through scientifc rather than moral or theological means. The author explains his side of the story and then give us an interesting conversation with another scientist as they discuss the issues.

The information about Dr McCrone, whose book on the scientific aspects of the carbon dating is excellent, is both biased and quite selective. It is pitiful to see scientists substitute the alleged findings of a hack for the rigorous tests of the laboratory. The neutrality of the author is a joke but in a work about scientific evidence, this bias is deadly.

 Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

Highly Biased, January 16, 2001

On pg. 13, Mr. Case speaks of the most outspoken anti-authenticity scientist, Dr. McCrone, mentioning his analysis of a Viking map of the New World, which he proved to be faked. The author immediately attempts to cast doubt on D