Shroud of Turin

[Storyteller]

I apologise for mis reading your post. You did indeed say it was possible that the shroud is authentic. If it is Audie, what would that mean to you?

I disagree that you and I can`t look into the shroud, there is plenty of information out there (and indeed, on this thread) about it. Yes, I agree there are crazy ideas about it but there are crazy ideas about almost everything.

My take on the science supporting the shroud so therefore supporting evolution? If you accept it for one then you must accept it for the other. BUT there may be different interpretations of it. For some people there is no evidence of evolution.

[PaulSacramento]

I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

So if one accepts scientific evidence for evolution then one must also accept the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, don't you think?

Yes and no.
I think there is more DIRECT scientific evidence to view the shroud as real AND being evidence of an extraordinary event than there is DIRECT evidence for evolution via Natural selection.
That is the case BECAUSE we CAN study the shroud directly and we CAN repeat experience to try and emulate what could have happened to the shroud and we can do this directly.
With evolution we have to work backwards from millions of years and draw conclusions based on indirect evidence.
Now, as an evolutionist, I know that the evidence that stacks up to evolution being real and verifiable is quite a lot BUT I also know that we have NOT been able to reproduce and/repeat it in a lab.
We have come close of course.
BUT, in regards to the shroud, we have come even closer.
So, IMO, there is more direct scientific evidence to conclude that the shroud IS real and IS evidence of an extraordinary event than there is for evolution VIA natural selection.

[Audie]

I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

So if one accepts scientific evidence for evolution then one must also accept the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, don't you think?

Yes and no.
I think there is more DIRECT scientific evidence to view the shroud as real AND being evidence of an extraordinary event than there is DIRECT evidence for evolution via Natural selection.
That is the case BECAUSE we CAN study the shroud directly and we CAN repeat experience to try and emulate what could have happened to the shroud and we can do this directly.
With evolution we have to work backwards from millions of years and draw conclusions based on indirect evidence.
Now, as an evolutionist, I know that the evidence that stacks up to evolution being real and verifiable is quite a lot BUT I also know that we have NOT been able to reproduce and/repeat it in a lab.
We have come close of course.
BUT, in regards to the shroud, we have come even closer.
So, IMO, there is more direct scientific evidence to conclude that the shroud IS real and IS evidence of an extraordinary event than there is for evolution VIA natural selection.

What do you even mean by "real"? Apparently it can be touched, photographed, hefted, even.

Real as in that only a supernatural event could have made it?

[EssentialSacrifice]

Hey Audie,

Real as in that only a supernatural event could have made it? Pretty crazy, huh ... but yes. Now young lady is when your intellectual curiosity should peak and go back and read say from page 72 onward. You'll read stuff that has been clinically verified, tested, by some of the most advanced medical and scientific equipment possible by some preeminent doctors and scientists in their fields.

bip has kindly offered a good number of youtube vids within those pages to ingest also. Nothing you will find guarantees the person under the Shroud was indisputably Christ. But after you see and hear for yourself, I think it will be very difficult not to acknowledge a legitimate sense of the supernatural, but that the supernatural occurred on earth some 2000 years ago, somehow preserved for us till today and may very well be the image of God. .

I do look forward to your thoughts and given the amount of info involved, take your time, ingest it all and tell me what your thoughts are after your investigation.

[Audie]

Hey Audie,

Real as in that only a supernatural event could have made it? Pretty crazy, huh ... but yes. Now young lady is when your intellectual curiosity should peak and go back and read say from page 72 onward. You'll read stuff that has been clinically verified, tested, by some of the most advanced medical and scientific equipment possible by some preeminent doctors and scientists in their fields.

bip has kindly offered a good number of youtube vids within those pages to ingest also. Nothing you will find guarantees the person under the Shroud was indisputably Christ. But after you see and hear for yourself, I think it will be very difficult not to acknowledge a legitimate sense of the supernatural, but that the supernatural occurred on earth some 2000 years ago, somehow preserved for us till today and may very well be the image of God. .

I do look forward to your thoughts and given the amount of info involved, take your time, ingest it all and tell me what your thoughts are after your investigation.

I will look into finding time for that.

You do of course recognize that proof of a supernatural event would be rock-the-world news of the greatest significance.

My question was just asking if by "real" he meant
that it was proof of the supernatural. If not, then what does "real" mean in this context.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Audie wrote:

I will look into finding time for that.
I used to tell my students that just to keep them satisfied I was listening... ahem

You do of course recognize that proof of a supernatural event would be rock-the-world news of the greatest significance.
indeed young lady, why in the world do you think we are so excited. Every door that has tried to been shut over the years has been reopened w/o recourse to date.

My question was just asking if by "real" he meant
that it was proof of the supernatural. If not, then what does "real" mean in this context.

"real" means whatever it means when we come to the end of the investigation. It could mean something all together else by the end.

Do I have your interest now ?

[Audie]

Audie wrote:

I will look into finding time for that.
I used to tell my students that just to keep them satisfied I was listening... ahem

You do of course recognize that proof of a supernatural event would be rock-the-world news of the greatest significance.
indeed young lady, why in the world do you think we are so excited. Every door that has tried to been shut over the years has been reopened w/o recourse to date.

My question was just asking if by "real" he meant
that it was proof of the supernatural. If not, then what does "real" mean in this context.

"real" means whatever it means when we come to the end of the investigation. It could mean something all together else by the end.

Do I have your interest now ?

See from my perspective, reports of amazing things come in all the time, from all quarters.

A while back a Hong Kong film group came back with the most amazing high quality photos of Noahs Ark. Another posted photos of Bigfoot, that he'd hit with his truck and had in his deep freeze.

Ok.... standing by. Wake me when its over.
Neither of those turned out to be real.

I will accept it as possible that ye shroud is as real as the most enthusiastic believer can hope for.

Im not really interested in trying to follow that one any more than any of the other claims of the paranormal that come in. If anyone ever really-really produces
proof of the supernatural, I will for sure wake up.

[PaulSacramento]

I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

So if one accepts scientific evidence for evolution then one must also accept the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, don't you think?

Yes and no.
I think there is more DIRECT scientific evidence to view the shroud as real AND being evidence of an extraordinary event than there is DIRECT evidence for evolution via Natural selection.
That is the case BECAUSE we CAN study the shroud directly and we CAN repeat experience to try and emulate what could have happened to the shroud and we can do this directly.
With evolution we have to work backwards from millions of years and draw conclusions based on indirect evidence.
Now, as an evolutionist, I know that the evidence that stacks up to evolution being real and verifiable is quite a lot BUT I also know that we have NOT been able to reproduce and/repeat it in a lab.
We have come close of course.
BUT, in regards to the shroud, we have come even closer.
So, IMO, there is more direct scientific evidence to conclude that the shroud IS real and IS evidence of an extraordinary event than there is for evolution VIA natural selection.

What do you even mean by "real"? Apparently it can be touched, photographed, hefted, even.

Real as in that only a supernatural event could have made it?

When we speak of the shroud being "real" we are speaking of the image on the shroud.
Of course the actual shroud is real.
That the closest modern science has come to duplicating the image on the shroud is via radiation, should be enough to give anyone pause for thought at the very least.

[Audie]

I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

So if one accepts scientific evidence for evolution then one must also accept the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, don't you think?

Yes and no.
I think there is more DIRECT scientific evidence to view the shroud as real AND being evidence of an extraordinary event than there is DIRECT evidence for evolution via Natural selection.
That is the case BECAUSE we CAN study the shroud directly and we CAN repeat experience to try and emulate what could have happened to the shroud and we can do this directly.
With evolution we have to work backwards from millions of years and draw conclusions based on indirect evidence.
Now, as an evolutionist, I know that the evidence that stacks up to evolution being real and verifiable is quite a lot BUT I also know that we have NOT been able to reproduce and/repeat it in a lab.
We have come close of course.
BUT, in regards to the shroud, we have come even closer.
So, IMO, there is more direct scientific evidence to conclude that the shroud IS real and IS evidence of an extraordinary event than there is for evolution VIA natural selection.

What do you even mean by "real"? Apparently it can be touched, photographed, hefted, even.

Real as in that only a supernatural event could have made it?

When we speak of the shroud being "real" we are speaking of the image on the shroud.
Of course the actual shroud is real.
That the closest modern science has come to duplicating the image on the shroud is via radiation, should be enough to give anyone pause for thought at the very least.

It does. THO, how thoroughly people have been allowed to test the cloth may have something to do with it?

Also, there is at least a whiff of argument from ignorance, a cause for pause, too.

[EssentialSacrifice]

well Audi, (sigh) you can lead the horse to water ...

[Audie]

well Audi, (sigh) you can lead the horse to water ...

Well, ES, in the metaphor dept, I dont see any water, A promise of water, maybe, in the future.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Well, ES, in the metaphor dept, I dont see any water, A promise of water, maybe, in the future.

There really is no metaphor involved. I gave you reference pages (start on page 74 ... see I even saved you a few pages ) where you can have questions above answered that I may not be able to convince you of in regards to their veracity of use, findings and finally decisions on outcome of reflective analysis. I thought your scientific community and your personal scientific method would place some value on the information.

Oh well, you said maybe ... perhaps we'll talk about it then ... maybe not... I can't make you drink when you won't even kindly be led. It's right in front of you.

Spoon feeding, in the long run teaches us nothing but the shape of the spoon.
-E.M. Forster

[Audie]

Well, ES, in the metaphor dept, I dont see any water, A promise of water, maybe, in the future.

There really is no metaphor involved. I gave you reference pages (start on page 74 ... see I even saved you a few pages ) where you can have questions above answered that I may not be able to convince you of in regards to their veracity of use, findings and finally decisions on outcome of reflective analysis. I thought your scientific community and your personal scientific method would place some value on the information.

Oh well, you said maybe ... perhaps we'll talk about it then ... maybe not... I can't make you drink when you won't even kindly be led. It's right in front of you.

Spoon feeding, in the long run teaches us nothing but the shape of the spoon.
-E.M. Forster

No metaphor, talkin' about leading to water?
I dont want, wont accept "spoon feeding". Metaphorically speaking.
There is at this time a lotta talk about how there may well be water in the future.
Im sure I will hear about the earth shaking discovery, if it happens.
Or, of course I will feel the metaphorical shake.

Meanwhile, I think I will leave the believers to it.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Hey Audie,

There really is no metaphor involved. very poorly written, meant metaphor aside ... apologies, wish i would have proofed b4 post

The spoon feeding quote was really more a jab at me, a little at you... I'm the one trying to get you to read that which you care not to.

There is at this time a lotta talk about how there may well be water in the future.
Im sure I will hear about the earth shaking discovery, if it happens.
Or, of course I will feel the metaphorical shake.

Meanwhile, I think I will leave the believers to it.

This however, is a surprise from an academic, whether topically sensitive or not. To me looks like sitting in the dark until someone else comes to turn on the lights.
If curiosity changes your mind you know where to find us.

[Audie]

Hey Audie,

There really is no metaphor involved. very poorly written, meant metaphor aside ... apologies, wish i would have proofed b4 post

The spoon feeding quote was really more a jab at me, a little at you... I'm the one trying to get you to read that which you care not to.

There is at this time a lotta talk about how there may well be water in the future.
Im sure I will hear about the earth shaking discovery, if it happens.
Or, of course I will feel the metaphorical shake.

Meanwhile, I think I will leave the believers to it.

This however, is a surprise from an academic, whether topically sensitive or not. To me looks like sitting in the dark until someone else comes to turn on the lights.
If curiosity changes your mind you know where to find us.

I've seen bips approach to science elsewhere and he ranks with abc in my estimation. Not the ones to cite to
me, for good sourcing, analytical thinking or reasonable opinions on matters related to physical sciences on any level.

That is one reason the thread doesnt interest me. If I do spend time on it, I will do my own work.
Im not big on following "authority". One who is so clearly not qualified to talk science..
never mind


I dont feel comfortable any kind of arguing or disagreeing with you, I dunno why.
Its not like me. Id rather discuss recipes or travel or cats or something.

I dont want to do this.

In my own time I will read more about the shroud. Meanwhile, I dont think my lack of interest is
inconsistent with my values, nor otherwise misplaced. Thanks for your thoughts, I do appreciate your
effort.