Evidence for God from Science

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Here is the best, most current and complete info all in one place on the Shroud I have found. Russ Breault has this site and it is phenomenally outfitted with just about all the updated info you can ask for. There is a drop down box on let hand side with even more info that is even more well versed that contains great info.

I went to these guys (e-mail) in hopes they can illumine the "95%" scientist converting to Christianity claim. We'll see, but in the mean time this site's info is overwhelming.

http://shroud2000.com/Introduction.html

Nice going essential , I also consider Russ breault as one of the top shroud experts online . His specialty is in the historical side of the shroud ,especially the Constantinople connection to it .
This stuff is fun isn't it

This stuff is fun isn't it

10-4

OK, Bip's gonna like this one and he's gonna go crazy about the ending content!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 23989.html

ptc... you mean the very ending ? That ended up ok fun post man, thx.

Philip wrote:OK, Bip's gonna like this one and he's gonna go crazy about the ending content!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 23989.html

Eh, one issue there is that their image is based on the idea that the Shroud image is 2 dimensional, when it is actually 3 dimensional on a 2 dimensional surface. You can't just color in the lines.

Philip wrote:OK, Bip's gonna like this one and he's gonna go crazy about the ending content!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 23989.html

Wow, nice find Philip. You know me well my friend hehe. I always used to wonder what Christ looked like as a teenager. We could be looking at him right now in this pic.
I can just picture this kid in the pic going into the temple and wowing the raw is with his wisdom.
I'm telling you Philip the more they investigate it the closer they seem to be coming get to authenticity .

I just think God will always leave a little mystery as he always wants faith to be some part of the equation , but the evidence points compellingly to the side of authenticity .

Reading the article now . I was so fixated on the images that I forgot about the article

SoCalExile wrote:

Philip wrote:OK, Bip's gonna like this one and he's gonna go crazy about the ending content!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 23989.html

Eh, one issue there is that their image is based on the idea that the Shroud image is 2 dimensional, when it is actually 3 dimensional on a 2 dimensional surface. You can't just color in the lines.

I wonder if they used any other technologies to do this socal . I'll probably need to go behind enemy lines to shroud story to research that lol

Philip wrote:OK, Bip's gonna like this one and he's gonna go crazy about the ending content!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 23989.html

Not that Friking atheist loon lungi again.this is exactly what I mean by the media always favoring the pseudoskeptical side always on the shroud. We have already went through the anatomical accuracy of the blood stains from forensic experts and luigi is a Friking chemist for Petes sake not a forensic expert.

Robert Bucklin forensic pathologist of 50 years already confirmed the blood stains are anatomically accurate .
This is why I love slamming pseudoskeptics so badly.

Just got done with another skeptic by email exchange on the shroud . He told me he hates me more then his girlfriends cat lol.

I said "I asked him to stop complimenting me "

bippy123 wrote:

Philip wrote:OK, Bip's gonna like this one and he's gonna go crazy about the ending content!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 23989.html

Wow, nice find Philip. You know me well my friend hehe. I always used to wonder what Christ looked like as a teenager. We could be looking at him right now in this pic.
I can just picture this kid in the pic going into the temple and wowing the raw is with his wisdom.
I'm telling you Philip the more they investigate it the closer they seem to be coming get to authenticity .

I just think God will always leave a little mystery as he always wants faith to be some part of the equation , but the evidence points compellingly to the side of authenticity .

Reading the article now . I was so fixated on the images that I forgot about the article

There`s an article too?

I just got transfixed by the images.

Matteo Borrini has a phd in forensic anthropology which has nothing to do with the forensics we think about . Here is a definition of his field below .

Forensic anthropology is the application of the science of anthropology and its several subfields, including Biological Anthropology(Physical) and Cultural Anthropology (Ethnology, Archeology, Linguistics), in a legal setting.

Saying this , all of the experts who hold PhDs in the field of blood forensic patterns totally disagree with him on the fact that the blood stains were anatomically correct and consistent with crucifixion . This is typical blather from the anti authenticist media that has a clear bias against the shrouds authenticity .

All of the medical experts like Barbet, Bucklin, Hynek, Lavoie, Zugibe etc. came to the conclusions from their own research and studies that the blood stains on the Shroud image is anatomically accurate .

And what do we find when we look on Wikipedia under Cicap (which is the European branch of James randi's csicop , which is an atheist skeptics organization ? Viola we see Matteo borinni's name magically appear

http://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICAP

Luigi is also a member of that atheist society of skeptics .

Looks like another low level hatchet job by skeptics yet again .

T

SoCalExile wrote:

Philip wrote:OK, Bip's gonna like this one and he's gonna go crazy about the ending content!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 23989.html

Eh, one issue there is that their image is based on the idea that the Shroud image is 2 dimensional, when it is actually 3 dimensional on a 2 dimensional surface. You can't just color in the lines.

Looking through it SoCal you are correct . The history channel guy who did his computer imaging image did in fact consider the 3d information while the group that did this child photo of The man of the shroud didn't . As you can see the starting image looks nothing like the one ray downing got when he did his shroud image .

After considering this I can't take this newer image seriously cause like SoCal said it didn't take the 3d factor into consideration .

Bip, just a thought - as you are our resident expert on "All Things About the Shroud" - as there are several KEY and apparent misinformed/easily rebutted assertions that supposedly reveal the Shroud to be a mere forged (however), old artifact, it would be cool to begin a thread that lists them (Thread: "Common False and Rebutted Assertions About the Shroud": 1) Carbon 14 Tests Show Shroud is no older than..."), with a brief paragraph explaining why a specific assertion is proven false, and then just place the best of your many posts links pertaining to it, underneath. As the false assertions we are reading over and over are typically one of a handful that we are seeing repeated over and over, and think that would be a cool thread to point for those any of us encounter.

Bip, I'd like you to really think on a MUCH BIGGER scale with your Shroud research - as I would think, likely, NO other person in the entire world has researched so many source materials and qualified experts as you have! Really, what you have done on this forum to educate us on this matter is astonishing. It shows your great enthusiasm and passion. Really, an ancient, pre-modern / scientific age "artifact" that has 3-dimensional/spatial imagery, perfectly accurate to Scripture's description of the wounds of Christ, with an image that no one can figure out how it got on the cloth (excepting some enormous burst of energy), that can't, even now, be duplicated, that analysis shows even the correct pollens unique to the Holy Land on it, that has a NEGATIVE image on it, pre-photography, that ALL of these incredible aspects of it just happen to make it the most EXPERT-studied artifact IN THE WORLD, and it just so happens that we know that many hundreds of years ago it was considered to be the actual burial garment of Christ. What an amazing array of conincidences, eh? And HOW - as who in the ancient world would even have the expertise to create something so sophisticated, much less that can't be replicated by modern techniques, and whose 3-dimensional features and photographic image wouldn't have even been understood (by any supposed ancient forger)? And WHY, when a simple painted fake would have been more than enough to fool ancient pilgrims? None of this makes ANY sense - UNLESS...

I think our bips should write a book on all his studies of the shroud. I'd buy it

StoryT: I think our bips should write a book on all his studies of the shroud. I'd buy it

So would I! But my point is that to have a quick cheat-sheet linking the latest research and expert sources rebutting the false assertions about the Shroud redundantly regurgitated by the media - ALL in one place - so that anyone could simply email the link to media or anyone else - I mean, how cool would that be?