Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote: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.

You've got a major hang up there Audie. Sure that evolution isn't your religion.

Predictably its about me.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote: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.

You've got a major hang up there Audie. Sure that evolution isn't your religion.

Predictably its about me.

No, it's about Bippy really.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: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?

Fair is fair. Dont you think so?

Oh absolutely. I'm just not convinced that you do.

Fair is fair; I've no reason to think you are objective.

It is certainly your prerogative, however baseless it is.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote: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.

You've got a major hang up there Audie. Sure that evolution isn't your religion.

Predictably its about me.

No, it's about Bippy really.

who that?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote: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.

You've got a major hang up there Audie. Sure that evolution isn't your religion.

Predictably its about me.

No, it's about Bippy really.

who that?

Don't be mean.

Actually, recent events kind of remind me of this smiley.

And then everyone was like, damn.
But, now, you're just trying to take the mickey out of him.

There is a lot of solid content that has been provided here.

Rob wrote:

Susan wrote:Remember several years ago the Catholic Church allowed several companies to TEST the cloth of the Shroud of Turin to see how old it is? Well, the findings came back and all three samples taken from the cloth were concluded that it was not old enough to have held Jesus. The cloth only tested 600 or so years old. Jesus was cruxified 2000 years old. Making the Shroud a forgery.
Thoughts??

I realize that this is a long thread, but I'm fairly certain this issue has been addressed already.

IIRC, the piece of cloth they took to test was from the bottom corner. The shroud was rescued from a fire and parts of it got burned, so it had to be patched up. The piece they tested was one of these patched pieces and I believe it was verified as such by observing that the section they pulled from had indeed been sewn on. I'm sure bippy will correct me here, but I don't remember the exact details of it.

Pretty much correct Rob. The 1988 c14 tests were pretty much refuted by agnostic thermal chemist ray Rogers from Los alamos labs in his peer reviewed chemical analysis in thermochimica acta .

Rogers had a piece of the corner area that was c14 tested and he found spliced cotton interwoven into regular shroud material . He also found madder dye in the corner area . No spliced cotton or madder dye was found in any other area of the shroud . Rogers also tested the c14 corner area for vanillin and found that it came back 37% positive for vanillin while the first of the shroud tested negative for vanillin.

The team in charge of the c 14 testing broke 15 standard protocols , including nit doing a standard microchemical analysis to make sure that the corner piece was chemically the same as the test of the shroud. Rogers however did and chemical analysis proved that it was not chemically the same as the rest of the shroud.

It was one of the most sloppy c14 tests ever done.

Also to correct Susan , there weren't 3 different tests done on the shroud. It was basically one pice from one area that was then divided into 3 with one piece given to each if the 3 labs.

Another protocol violation was the chi squared number . Any chi squared number over 6 indicates a non homologous number. The number for the 1988 c14 test was 6.4 and when done by computer it came out to the high 8''s.

Audie wrote: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.

No one is claiming that science proves its authentic Audie. What we are saying is the the evidence for authenticity is strong , much stronger then the case for inauthenticity.

And no one is saying that science has no evidence for evolution . U like evolution which is not allowed to be critiqued , the Shroud has been allowed to be critiqued for hundreds of years . If there were courses in college on the shroud I'm sure they would have no problem teaching the cons and pros , unlike Darwinian evolution which is sacred and absolutely can't be criticized .

I have already agreed in principle with the possibility of a version of evolution that Rick pointed out , because it does in principle allow for CSI to be loaded into the programming , but say this in any American or European community and you would be burnt at the stake . That's not science , that's ideology. True science is worldview neutral , and Darwinian evolutionists are clearly not worldview neutral . Now I am an ID advocate but ricks case is plausible which I already conceded on it .

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote: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.

.5%

More sarcasm.

Sorry, I cannot help myself. It's in my blood.

My last blood test results had the ingredients of my blood:

Water
Blood cells
Carbon dioxide
Glucose
Hormones
Proteins
Pepperoni pizza
Sarcasm

You don't know how much I needed a laugh Rick

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: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?

Byblos , great point . Audie welcome to the pro shroud authenticity arena
I knew deep down I side that audie was a pro shroudie

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote: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.

You've got a major hang up there Audie. Sure that evolution isn't your religion.

All kneel at the altar of blind chance and chemical interaction causing specified complex information . Though we have never observed this happening in the history of humanity we know that the all powerful hand of BCCI (blind chance chemical interaction ) can magically create the message on the beach .

We know this because of the great protect of the BCCI called lord BrokenBottleintozillionpieces has revealed this to us into our materialistic brains .

We bless you BCCI
We praise you BCCI
Let your will be done

BrokenBottleintozillionpieces

Thanks bip, day hasn't started off so good and I appreciated the laugh maybe all can't appreciate the importance of the possibility of Shroud's authenticity but some in here do and this is the Shroud post .... just sayin Audie, it's not about you, it's about our great expectations that are elevated by science but sustained by our hope and faith.

I`ve said it before but I`ll say it again, Thanks Bips, for all the work, research and effort you have put into this thread. (Still working through it, attacking it from both ends now!)

I knew virtually nothing about the shroud before this thread and what I have read here has blown my mind. Hairs on the back of your neck standing up good. I really appreciate some of the arguments raised on this thread, and almost every criticism is countered.

I love the way that critique is welcomed and then discussed, pulled apart, and put together again.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:BrokenBottleintozillionpieces

Thanks bip, day hasn't started off so good and I appreciated the laugh maybe all can't appreciate the importance of the possibility of Shroud's authenticity but some in here do and this is the Shroud post .... just sayin Audie, it's not about you, it's about our great expectations that are elevated by science but sustained by our hope and faith.

Dunno what your comment to me means, but a) someone turned a specific comment back at me, I know the thread is not about me and b) if you find that your expectations are buoyed and sustained, that is fine.

You consider it a possibility, so do I.

The shroud might be the real thing, and it might not. In among the countless purported relics, there could be one or more real ones. A lot of the claims about the shroud are pretty nutty. Doesnt mean there is not some real info. My understanding may be wrong, but I think it has been kept away from people and tests that might better
decide.

I guess my attitude is basically one of "wake me when its over'.

That`s just lazy Audie.

Someone else does all the work and lets you know when it`s all been found out? What about looking for yourself?

I think the comment that was turned to you was because you are happy to use science to bolster evolution yet appered to dismiss it when it supports the validity of the shroud.

Storyteller wrote:That`s just lazy Audie.

Someone else does all the work and lets you know when it`s all been found out? What about looking for yourself?

I think the comment that was turned to you was because you are happy to use science to bolster evolution yet appered to dismiss it when it supports the validity of the shroud.

Please re read my post? Essential there said "the possibility of Shroud's authenticity"

I said, I agree, its possible. You misread that as me dismissing it. Where do I"appear" to dismiss it?

I nor you is in a position to do any research on the shroud, which is itself "shrouded" from researchers who might be able to settle the issue. That is not being lazy. I dont care to read all the speculation and sometimes, frankly, crazy writings about it. If anyone really finds out, then I will get interested. Do you think its settled?



When I asked if the same people who want to believe any science that supports the shroud have the same approach to science that supports evolution.

Nobody addressed that, but rather went after me. I tend to take that as confirming my opinion that for some, science is only credible when its convenient.