Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Philip wrote:Jac, I'm so sure that FL just loved your little thread history lesson . Actually, I think it got stirred up because FL made some sarcastic, flip remark about some aspect or comment on The Shroud, it was very late a night and responded with a very irked response and challenged him, as subsequently others did. I am very proud of him that he took the time to carefully sift through such copious posts and detailed info (Thanks much to Bippy!), eventually noting how surprised he was that this is no typical, fake relic. And this Shroud issue is a stunning testament to how the popular press can saturate the masses with partial and often incorrect (and redundantly refuted) info, to the point that most Christians have absolutely no idea of how incredible this spiritual artifact is. And to be honest, first reading some of Bip's posts (and with no context) I started out about as cynical as did FL, if perhaps not quite as sarcastic (that'd be hard to do, eh? ).
This is the exact problem here Philip and the best example was the 1988 c14 tests . When the results came out the press spread it like wildfire and shroud interest almost came to a halt. When the 1988 c14 tests were invalidated by agnostic thermal chemist ray Rogers in his peer reviewed chemical analysis the press barely mentioned it at all and all newbie shroud researchers after 2005 have to dig deep into the research to even find out about ray Rogers research .
Thank God for People like Barrie Schwortz and stephen jones who kept putting out great informational material on the shroud
Audie wrote:I've seen discussions elsewhere, and was not much interested. Maybe I am missing something.
Similar discussions on the reality of flood and evolution are to be found. I feel more at home there, having some few years of study in biology and geology. I suppose the arguments are familiar, as are who will take which sides.
Ive a couple of questions to ask anyone who might care to indulge me with a response.
Whether any of you have a reason to care one way or the other how I see the shroud, I wouldnt know, or know why. If someone has a comment on that, I'd be interested. It will make some difference as to whether I spend more time looking into the shroud.
Anyway, my questions for those who feel the shroud is the real thing is..
Do you think that the evidence for a world wide flood is convincing?
Do you think that evolution is wrong, and false science?
Did you apply similar diligence to these topics as you have to the shroud question?
I am not as well verses in the flood as others here but I believe in a regional flood .
As far as evolution ,I was an evolutionist for 41 years and changes my mind about 4 years ago thanks mostly to stephen Meyers argument from specified complexity and somewhat in a smaller way from Macroevolution . I would have no problem coming back to evolution and it wouldn't make a dent in my faith. Most if my relatives are evolutionists so I'm the black sheep out of us lol
PaulSacramento wrote:As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.
This is the best way to approach the shroud Paul. My faith is in Jesus and the testimony if the apostles .
And yes it probably will never be proven 100% , but most of the evidence points towards authenticity .
No scientist alive has been able to duplicate it which is amazing in and of itself , and other things such as the pristine blood clots tell us that something unnatural happened to that shroud .
There are many things happening in the shroud that tell us that it's virtually impossible for it being the work of a forger .
Audie wrote:
Do you think that the evidence for a world wide flood is convincing?
Do you think that evolution is wrong, and false science?
Did you apply similar diligence to these topics as you have to the shroud question?
What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in Madagascar? But I'll indulge: No, no, you bet.
Ok, one who wont say, and one who I think said that they diligently looked into the matter of whether the creation and flood story are literally true, and found they are not.
First, I did not say the creation and flood stories were untrue and second and more improtantly, why do you insist on changing the subject?
First..
You were too cryptic for me with one word answers. Sorry I misread you. I dont know what you meant by your answer.
Second, I am not insisting on anything. I was pretty specific about "if you care to indulge me".
If you do not, that is fine.
No intent to change the subject. It is presented that the evidence is fact based and objectively evaluated, leading to a clear conclusion of authenticity.
I had a specific reason for asking, very much related the post I was answering, about a person examining the evidence and reaching conclusions. I was told that this or that person had doubted, examined evidence, and decided its genuine.
Its reasonable to evaluate a witness on the basis of their track record.
But if nobody wants to address my question, thats fine. Whether or not I investigate the shroud and what conclusion I come to is my affair.
ps "not literally true" and, "untrue" are not the same thing.
I spoke of one, you spoke of the other.
Audie if I were you, I would start with the research done not by atheists or Christians , but by the agnostics as I think they have done some of the best work on the shroud.
People like shroud historian Ian Wilson
Los alamos labs thermal chemist and senior fellow ray Rogers
Doctor August Accetta
Lawyer mark Antonacci
2 of the 4 are either scientists or doctors with Antonacci being a lawyer and Ian Wilson being an historian
I think you will find it extremely interesting that of the 4 agnostics that started out researching the shroud 3 of the 4 are now Christians with Ray Rogers being the only one who died an agnostic .
What did they find in their research that caused them to change their mind ?
Audie: And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?
NOT if it's REALLY the burial linen of the Ressurrected Christ!
Of course, our faith is not based upon a piece of cloth. But if that cloth is the REAL deal, as purported to be, then you have a major problem of considerable urgency.
What problem is that? Real deal meaning, proof of god? That would be cool, and something to make the most of it.
Id say for sure its a sorry faith based on a apiece of cloth. I do, tho, see people who say that if certain (here not mentioned again) bible stories are not literally true, then christianity is a lie. So while their faith is not based entirely on "literal or lie", its sure based in part on lie.
BTW the thing someone said about it being "atheist kryptonite" was kinda dumb.
Of course, it went along with more about how them atheists are profane. illiterate and generally of low degree, so I guess it was at least in keeping.
Audie it was me that originally said that the shroud is Kryptonite to atheists ,and I said it for many more reasons that u think .
The shroud I believe does the best job of expressing the emotional biases of atheists as most claim they love science and peer review but when it comes to the shroud most will rely on people like Walter Mccrone and joe nickell, even though Mccrone couldn't get any of his papers to pass peer review and joe nickell doesn't even have a 2 year degree in any scientific field .
They will take Mccrones non peer reviewed opinion over Alan adlers peer reviewed blood chemical testa and they keep saying that the red stuff is still paint .
This tells me that atheists don't really care about science . They only care about any evidence that favors their worldview .
Audie wrote:
I will not forget that you believe the claim is indisputable.
Well Aristotle's uncaused cause argument has been around for a few thousand years and Aquinas' prime mover argument for more than 700 years. When properly understood (meaning when not some caricature of either is attacked) neither has ever been disputed, let alone refuted. So I do certainly hope you remember I said they are indisputable and do welcome any counter arguments.
If cause and effect has one exception, how about more than one? After all one exception means its not a law.
This only confirms you have not yet understood the argument. There are no exceptions. Every effect must have a cause, no argument there. But where does it say every cause must have a cause? Either the argument concludes in a necessary being or it violates the law of non contradiction. Take your pick. Or you can go back and reread my and Jac's detailed posts and try to poke holes in them. Cause and effect just isn't one of them.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Audie wrote:
I will not forget that you believe the claim is indisputable.
Well Aristotle's uncaused cause argument has been around for a few thousand years and Aquinas' prime mover argument for more than 700 years. When properly understood (meaning when not some caricature of either is attacked) neither has ever been disputed, let alone refuted. So I do certainly hope you remember I said they are indisputable and do welcome any counter arguments.
If cause and effect has one exception, how about more than one? After all one exception means its not a law.
The whole first cause argument is NOT about cause and effect or action and reaction.
It simply states that All things that come into being have a cause.
Do you know of any things that come into being that do NOT have a cause?
PaulSacramento wrote:As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.
This is the best way to approach the shroud Paul. My faith is in Jesus and the testimony if the apostles .
And yes it probably will never be proven 100% , but most of the evidence points towards authenticity .
No scientist alive has been able to duplicate it which is amazing in and of itself , and other things such as the pristine blood clots tell us that something unnatural happened to that shroud .
There are many things happening in the shroud that tell us that it's virtually impossible for it being the work of a forger .
I can say this with almost 100% certainty:
IF it could have been forged, someone would have reproduced it already.
No one has been able to and all the evidence for the image being there points to radiation.
Audie wrote:is it ok to ask you to summarize the argument in a few jargon- free lines?
It seems to me that saying it all starts with a "cause" that causes itself to move is just playing with definitions.
May I suggest not getting too far off topic in this Shroud thead? This is a great question and it's probably worthy of discussing on its own, no?
But just for a quick answer, and I'm sure Byblos would quickly point this out, the First Cause does not cause itself. Only effects are caused, and the First Cause is not an effect.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Audie wrote:is it ok to ask you to summarize the argument in a few jargon- free lines?
It seems to me that saying it all starts with a "cause" that causes itself to move is just playing with definitions.
May I suggest not getting too far off topic in this Shroud thead? This is a great question and it's probably worthy of discussing on its own, no?
But just for a quick answer, and I'm sure Byblos would quickly point this out, the First Cause does not cause itself. Only effects are caused, and the First Cause is not an effect.
Correct, it is ot.
Im aware of the assertion about "first cause" but I dont see anything there but assertion and artibrary definition. (I did say, "cause itself to move" btw)
PaulSacramento wrote:As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.
This is the best way to approach the shroud Paul. My faith is in Jesus and the testimony if the apostles .
And yes it probably will never be proven 100% , but most of the evidence points towards authenticity .
No scientist alive has been able to duplicate it which is amazing in and of itself , and other things such as the pristine blood clots tell us that something unnatural happened to that shroud .
There are many things happening in the shroud that tell us that it's virtually impossible for it being the work of a forger .
I can say this with almost 100% certainty:
IF it could have been forged, someone would have reproduced it already.
No one has been able to and all the evidence for the image being there points to radiation.
Are you certain that the shroud has been properly and thoroughly analyzed by reputable persons? Reproducing something you dont know what it is is very tough.
Audie wrote:Im aware of the assertion about "first cause" but I dont see anything there but assertion and artibrary definition. (I did say, "cause itself to move" btw)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
PaulSacramento wrote:As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.
This is the best way to approach the shroud Paul. My faith is in Jesus and the testimony if the apostles .
And yes it probably will never be proven 100% , but most of the evidence points towards authenticity .
No scientist alive has been able to duplicate it which is amazing in and of itself , and other things such as the pristine blood clots tell us that something unnatural happened to that shroud .
There are many things happening in the shroud that tell us that it's virtually impossible for it being the work of a forger .
I can say this with almost 100% certainty:
IF it could have been forged, someone would have reproduced it already.
No one has been able to and all the evidence for the image being there points to radiation.
Are you certain that the shroud has been properly and thoroughly analyzed by reputable persons? Reproducing something you dont know what it is is very tough.
I really thing you need to read this thread...that has been answered here already.
. Actually, I think it got stirred up because FL made some sarcastic, flip remark about some aspect or comment on The Shroud, it was very late a night and responded with a very irked response and challenged him, as subsequently others did. I am very proud of him that he took the time to carefully sift through such copious posts and detailed info (Thanks much to Bippy!), eventually noting how surprised he was that this is no typical, fake relic. And this Shroud issue is a stunning testament to how the popular press can saturate the masses with partial and often incorrect (and redundantly refuted) info, to the point that most Christians have absolutely no idea of how incredible this spiritual artifact is. And to be honest, first reading some of Bip's posts (and with no context) I started out about as cynical as did FL, if perhaps not quite as sarcastic (that'd be hard to do, eh?
