Evidence for God from Science

Morny wrote:

Audie wrote:So basically, we have this piece of cloth that the Vatican wont allow anyone to test for authenticity.

No, the Vatican testing cooperation was helpful. Although the Vatican didn't give over exactly the cloth samples that the scientists wanted, the reached compromise satisfied both the Vatican and the scientists.

The radiocarbon test results, by themselves, are consistent with the theory that the plant materials (for making the cloth) being grown in the early 14th century.

For most of us normal people and for nearly all science people, the radiocarbon tests answered the shroud's authenticity question.

Bippy: Looks like morny wants the shroud to be a forgery so bad that he's been reduced to making things up just to make himself feel more secure in his skepticism

Philip wrote:

Bippy: Looks like morny wants the shroud to be a forgery so bad that he's been reduced to making things up just to make himself feel more secure in his skepticism

And how glaringly obvious it is as to WHY he only wants to trifle over a highly questionable test performed upon far later fibers - because he probably realizes the highly complex, unduplicable details I noted are exceptionally powerful and that they completely eliminate the possibility of an ancient forger. So, yeah, let's just talk about Carbon 14 - which the evidence shows why that is in serious question - and just completely ignore evidences absolutely impossible for an ancient forger - ANY one of which, even by themselves, are astounding and rule out such a forger. And you add them TOGETHER and no rational person could possibly conclude that the forger theory has the slightest merit!

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Bippy: Looks like morny wants the shroud to be a forgery so bad that he's been reduced to making things up just to make himself feel more secure in his skepticism

And how glaringly obvious it is as to WHY he only wants to trifle over a highly questionable test performed upon far later fibers - because he probably realizes the highly complex, unduplicable details I noted are exceptionally powerful and that they completely eliminate the possibility of an ancient forger. So, yeah, let's just talk about Carbon 14 - which the evidence shows why that is in serious question - and just completely ignore evidences absolutely impossible for an ancient forger - ANY one of which, even by themselves, are astounding and rule out such a forger. And you add them TOGETHER and no rational person could possibly conclude that the forger theory has the slightest merit!

Is this impossible for a forger?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/s ... e-1.380888

Audie wrote:http://news.discovery.com/history/archa ... shroud.htm

Morny wrote:

Audie wrote:So basically, we have this piece of cloth that the Vatican wont allow anyone to test for authenticity.

No, the Vatican testing cooperation was helpful. Although the Vatican didn't give over exactly the cloth samples that the scientists wanted, the reached compromise satisfied both the Vatican and the scientists.

The radiocarbon test results, by themselves, are consistent with the theory that the plant materials (for making the cloth) being grown in the early 14th century.

For most of us normal people and for nearly all science people, the radiocarbon tests answered the shroud's authenticity question.

Paul S wrote:
Then I guess only one question is left to ask: HOW did they do this in the 14th century ?

EssentialSacrifice wrote:http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

very clear cut and readily understandable current info on the shroud. if, after reading this....

Paul S wrote:
Then I guess only one question is left to ask: HOW did they do this in the 14th century ?

Does the Shroud Give Evidence of Jesus’ Resurrection?

The research of the 1978 STURP Investigation, as well as subsequent research of John
Jackson, Giulio Fanti, Paolo Di Lazzaro and their teams, shows the likelihood that sometime
after the blood deposits had dried on the Shroud, the decomposing body in the Shroud emitted a
short intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation that led to a dehydration and discoloration of
the frontal and dorsal parts of the Shroud, giving rise to a perfect photographic negative image.
Jackson’s research also suggests that the body inside the Shroud became mechanically
transparent and emitted light evenly from every 3-dimensional point within it. This allowed the
frontal part of the Shroud to collapse – creating an image (of both the inside and outside of the
hands) as well as a double image on the frontal part of the Shroud.

So where do we stand? The first three of the above five enigmas (see above V.B) of
image formation can be explained by a short intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation
emitted from the body. This explanation has been shown to be realistic through experimental
replication (by Paolo Di Lazzaro et al.). The fourth and fifth enigmas imply that the body in the
Shroud became mechanically transparent and emitted light evenly from every three dimensional
point within it.

62 Sergio Prostak 2011 “Scientists Suggest Turin Shroud Authentic,” December 21, 2011 in Sci-News.com
(http://www.sci-news.com/physics/scienti ... entic.html).
63 Frank Viviano 2015 “Why Shroud of Turin’s Secrets Continue to Elude Science” National Geographic April 17,
2015 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015 ... onscience/

PaulSacramento wrote: I assume you decided to ignore the links I posted?

EssentialSacrifice wrote:http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

very clear cut and readily understandable current info on the shroud. if, after reading this....

Paul S wrote:
Then I guess only one question is left to ask: HOW did they do this in the 14th century ?

Morny wrote:
I asked you the following and you have not yet responded:
Which protocols were violated? Clearly and concisely state your position. Then pick your best link (or maybe two) that supports your position, so that I can respond.