Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that many people are wary of putting faith in a "thing" because of the fear that if that thing is shown to be false, one's faith can be "compromised".
I would think that would probably be the biggest reason to aggressively doubt the Shroud.

I put my faith in the authenticity of the shroud, because Kent Hovind believes it's fake. It's usually a safe bet to go the opposite of what Hovind believes.

lol I don't know much about Hovind except for the video debate he had with Hugh Ross. I like Hugh's website and visit it often.

Bippy, I'm sure Kent Hovind is a swell guy, once you get to know him. Actually, I owe Kent Hovind a debt of gratitude. If it weren't for Mr. Hovind, I wouldn't have found this website, where you all can enjoy my wit and wisdom.

Rick, I just found out that Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison . Ok maybe I need to know a bit more about him lol. Well Rick, at least he did one thing right, he brought u here lol, but by the posts here, getting to know him more is something too dangerous to try at home hehehe.
By the way Rick, nothing wrong with your wit, you got spunk, imagine what this world would be like with spunk?:)

Philip wrote:

Rick said: "lol I don't know much about Hovind except for the video debate he had with Hugh Ross. I like Hugh's website and visit it often."

Yes, Rick, I also am a HUGE fan of RTB, Ross Inc. In the debate with Ross, every time Hovind makes a statement, you can look over at Ross and can tell he must be thinking to himself, "This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel - with a MACHINEGUN!"

If only more of Hovind's fans knew a wee bit of basic astronomy and physical science, they'd realize he's a snake oil salesman. I almost feel bad for the guy, it's THAT embarrassing.

Actually, Philip, it was Bippy who said he's a huge fan of RTB. I love RTB, too, though.

If only more of Hovind's fans knew a wee bit of basic astronomy and physical science, they'd realize he's a snake oil salesman. I almost feel bad for the guy, it's THAT embarrassing.

I don't feel bad for Hovind, because he made his own bed, so to speak. And the consequences of his arrogance, left him in prison. All we can try to do, is help those who are led astray by Hovind.

Rick, I just found out that Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison . Ok maybe I need to know a bit more about him lol. Well Rick, at least he did one thing right, he brought u here lol, but by the posts here, getting to know him more is something too dangerous to try at home hehehe.

Bippy, Hovind helped lead me here, only because of his complete ineptitude, and arrogance, in the debate with Hugh Ross. The first time I saw the debate, I was a YEC, and just found out about OEC. So, it was actually Hugh Ross and Rich Deem, that influenced me the most, in my decision to give up my YEC beliefs.

RickD wrote:

Rick, I just found out that Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison . Ok maybe I need to know a bit more about him lol. Well Rick, at least he did one thing right, he brought u here lol, but by the posts here, getting to know him more is something too dangerous to try at home hehehe.

Bippy, Hovind helped lead me here, only because of his complete ineptitude, and arrogance, in the debate with Hugh Ross. The first time I saw the debate, I was a YEC, and just found out about OEC. So, it was actually Hugh Ross and Rich Deem, that influenced me the most, in my decision to give up my YEC beliefs.

Funny how are different paths helped lead us here. I was a theistic evolutionist and after abandoning it took a look at Rich Deems site here years ago, and it was also The Ross/Hovind debate that lead me to OEC, and it was first in that debate that I learned about how the Hebrew word in Genesis YOM meant day or time period. I quickly recognized that being from a lebanese family backgroud that we still use the word YOM and it still was used to mean both day and time period.
The journey is tough but its always worth it in the end:)

The "spark" that led me to research OEC, was a Jewish Rabbi on the radio, who said that Yom doesn't have to mean 24 hour day. Up until that point, I assumed the word "day", was a regular 24 hour day, in the Genesis creation narrative.

RickD wrote:The "spark" that led me to research OEC, was a Jewish Rabbi on the radio, who said that Yom doesn't have to mean 24 hour day. Up until that point, I assumed the word "day", was a regular 24 hour day, in the Genesis creation narrative.

Wow Rick, can you imagine if you had just missed the rabbi on the radio that day? Everything happens for a reason man:)
Before the Ross/Hovind debate I really didnt pay much attention to the day/time period creation account as I had always looked at Genesis through the lens of a child, but im glad that I learned all of this, because if or when I get married and have kids i'll know exactly how to answer those question when they become teens. Opps i'm getting a little ahead of myself, I gotta get married first lol

Wow Rick, can you imagine if you had just missed the rabbi on the radio that day? Everything happens for a reason man:)

I'd probably have been the second coming of Kent Hovind!!!

All the YEC criticisms aside, one of the things that has truly impressed me about Hugh Ross (and I've been reading his stuff about 20 years now) is that he is very humble and polite in rebutting those he disagrees with or that haven't a clue. The guy is just about always going to be the smartest fellow in the room, but he never comes off that way. He realizes that if Jesus is to be seen in him and people are to be open to what he's trying to enlighten them to, then he has to be humble and not talk down to those with lesser knowledge. And for a guy as smart, knowledgeable and as well respected as he is, to come off that way - well, that makes him even more impressive.

Twenty years back, I used to be quite intimidated by scientific papers, principles, jargon, explanations of processes, etc. But RTB and Hugh just got me very excited and obsessed with scientific things. One of the things I had never realized, is that, the closest anyone can come to understanding various scientific processes and principles is by some real-world analogy that we can all relate to. I used to think smart people had some deeper grasp on the EXACT way and characteristics in which things actually are, but now I realize that various comparisons or analogies (in which we are familiar with) are often as close as anyone can come. Understanding this broke down the intimidation barrier I had with science. And yet, while interested in their impacts and concepts, advanced mathematics and chemistry truly bores me (scares me?) to tears.

Oh another thing I was going to bring up Bippy, was the other objection that some Christians and non Christians have against the shroud is that they claim that the Bible does not directly speak about the Shroud in any way. But many shroud adherents will respond by pointing out in 2 Timothy 4:13 where Paul tells (Timothy?) to "bring the cloak" which could very well be reference to the Shroud, and Paul could have used that as a visual aide during his preaching and debating with nonbelievers in Rome and elsewhere.

What all do you know as far as whether or not there is sufficient evidence that this "cloak" was indeed the Shroud?

Either way it's a good thing I thought about that since I thought I had previously told you about all the top objections to the Shroud. But as always, thank you for your time.

Hey DRDS. I finally found the information that I was looking for that Kent Hovind didn't do his homework on the shroud. This will answer his objections on the shroud as far as Hovind saying that it doesn't match ancient Jewish burial customs.
It was a link that I had bookmarked but deleted a while back.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

BURIAL CONSISTENT WITH ANCIENT JEWISH BURIAL CUSTOM

The burial is consistent with ancient Jewish burial customs in all respects, including the use of cave-tombs, attitude of the body (hands folded over loins), and types of burial cloths.  The Sindon (Shroud) enveloped the body.  The Sudarium was a face-cloth used to cover the face out of respect during removal from the cross through entombment.  It was then removed and placed to one side.  There was also a chin-band holding the mouth closed.  The Othonia were bandages used to bind the wrists and legs.  All are mentioned in the New Testament and evidenced on the Cloth.  Such cloths are spoken of in the Misnah - oral traditions of the Rabbis written down in the second and third century.  The Cave-Tombs were carved out of sides of limestone hills. The presence of Calcium Carbonate (limestone dust) on the Cloth was noted by Dr. Eugenia Nitowski (Utah archaeologist) in her studies of the cave tombs of Jerusalem.  Optical Engineer Sam Pellicori noted in 1978 the presence of dirt particles on the nose as well as on the left knee and heel.  Prof. Giovanni Riggi noted burial mites.  Dr. Garza-Valdes discovered oak tubules (microscopic splinters) in the blood of the occipital area (back of the head) as well as natron salts.  Traces of aloe and myrrh have also been identified on the Cloth.  These are consistent with Jewish burial customs of antiquity.

DRDS wrote:Oh another thing I was going to bring up Bippy, was the other objection that some Christians and non Christians have against the shroud is that they claim that the Bible does not directly speak about the Shroud in any way. But many shroud adherents will respond by pointing out in 2 Timothy 4:13 where Paul tells (Timothy?) to "bring the cloak" which could very well be reference to the Shroud, and Paul could have used that as a visual aide during his preaching and debating with nonbelievers in Rome and elsewhere.

What all do you know as far as whether or not there is sufficient evidence that this "cloak" was indeed the Shroud?

Either way it's a good thing I thought about that since I thought I had previously told you about all the top objections to the Shroud. But as always, thank you for your time.

Hey DRDS, wow your as bad as me as far as digging up info. If I ever become a detective I'm definitely hiring you .
As far as the cloak Paul mentioned, I never heard of it being mentioned by shroud researchers but it has definately peaked my curiosity. Very good find.
I'll look into it
Bippy

Also, in addition, I may have even mentioned this thing on this thread a long time ago, but just in case I didn't on the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU1P1du8NCc

Gary Habermas mentions where at a previous lecture on the Shroud a dentist in the crowd noticed that he could see what looked to be x-rayed teeth around the jaw portion of the face on the Shroud image. Which if confirmed would show even more so just how vast and intricate the details are of the image itself, thus lending more evidence that the image could not have possibly been faked.

DRDS wrote:Also, in addition, I may have even mentioned this thing on this thread a long time ago, but just in case I didn't on the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU1P1du8NCc

Gary Habermas mentions where at a previous lecture on the Shroud a dentist in the crowd noticed that he could see what looked to be x-rayed teeth around the jaw portion of the face on the Shroud image. Which if confirmed would show even more so just how vast and intricate the details are of the image itself, thus lending more evidence that the image could not have possibly been faked.

Yea DRDS, I saw that video , and that is actually one of the best data that shows that the shroud couldn't have been the work of a forger from the middle ages. This is actually xray information on the image!!!!!!!
No one had this kind of technology in that time.

I believe Habermas was talking about the presentation at the Ohio shroud conference.
This is also another good piece of evidence that the light or radiation had to have been projected outward originating from Jesus's body.
DRDS your knowledge of the shroud is growing geometrically.
Pretty soon I'm gonna be playing catchup lol

Notice that when habermas talked about the dentist, the dentist said that in order for him to get an xray of a persons roots the way they are showing in the shroud image that the dentist would have to place a radiation ball the size of a golf ball in a patients mouth. Habermas said that that if this is some type of radiation that the roots solve the riddle as to whether this was radiation projecting outward or coming inward from the outside.
This shows that it have to have come from within the body projecting outward.

The shroud is highly addictive isn't it? There are so many unique aspects to this image that it becomes rediculous to even think a forger could have the technology to create what science today couldn't create.

I find this odd that it hasn't been bigger news. Am I missing something here? Found on the Turin.

The three letters were identified, reading from right to left as one does in Hebrew or Aramaic, as:
AYIN- ALEPH- NUN.
Calligraphy used to be my hobby, and as the letters of these alphabets are written in calligraphic form, I
used them many times to exercise my calligraphic skills, so I was very familiar with the shape of the
letters. However, I do not read Hebrew or Aramaic, so I consulted experts in old Hebrew and Aramaic.
They showed me the two most consulted Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries: “A Comprehensive
Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English”, by Ernest Klein, and, “A
Dictionary of the Targum, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature”, by Marcus
Jastrow.
Here the Hebrew word is translated as: “small cattle, sheep, goats”. Meaning: A flock of little animals.
In the translation from Hebrew to Aramaic of Psalm 119:176, ibn Ezra translates this word as AN,
meaning the Lamb (research: Bishop Jacob Barclay).