Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And then why press in to continue dismissing it any way? That a man named Jesus lived and died is not miraculous.
That He is God, rose from the dead and the like is, but that's not what the shroud necessarily represents.

Actually yes it does. The collapse theory is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence not only that the man buried in the shroud was crucified, but also that he rose out of the shroud without unfurling it (hence the top portion collapsed on the bottom portion and left its identifying marks). That is direct evidence for a resurrection. Now unless someone wants to argue it could have been someone else other than Jesus that actually rose from the dead ... But even at that, the point will have been conceded anyway.

That is one of the many fascinating aspects of the shroud, the question of, taking into account all that we know of the shroud and how it has never been replicated, if NOT Jesus then WHO? if not the resurrection then WHAT?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And then why press in to continue dismissing it any way? That a man named Jesus lived and died is not miraculous.
That He is God, rose from the dead and the like is, but that's not what the shroud necessarily represents.

Actually yes it does. The collapse theory is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence not only that the man buried in the shroud was crucified, but also that he rose out of the shroud without unfurling it (hence the top portion collapsed on the bottom portion and left its identifying marks). That is direct evidence for a resurrection. Now unless someone wants to argue it could have been someone else other than Jesus that actually rose from the dead ... But even at that, the point will have been conceded anyway.

That is one of the many fascinating aspects of the shroud, the question of, taking into account all that we know of the shroud and how it has never been replicated, if NOT Jesus then WHO? if not the resurrection then WHAT?

That is something that requires further argumentation.
The shroud in and of itself doesn't necessitate belief in the resurrection, so it's not a necessary belief to have if one accepts the shroud covered Jesus.
However, one should have an alternative explanation for such to dismiss it. I'm sure Atheists could come up with all sorts. They're good at that.

Here is one that comes to mind.
Let's say there is a 1 in a million chance that the shroud would have collapsed exactly as we found it. The fact that the 1 in a million happened, should we be in awe?
We see much more dire odds come to pass all the time when someone wins the lottery.

It seems to me that a scientist by the name of Collin Berry has reproduced the shroud image quite well. He managed to create the image, front and back, on the linen using materials from medieval times. The image also has 3D properties and a negative. Also, don't let anyone fool you into thinking that human blood was found on the shroud. It was not conclusive. At best, all we know is that it is primate's blood. It has not been proven that the image was produce by a laser or UV. A similar patch was produced using those techniques but they failed once it got past a certain size. Bilirubin was not found in the blood and even it it was, no amount of it can turn blood a bright red since bilirubun is orange. The "pollen" found on the shroud also has not been proven to come from the middle east. Lastly, the repair hypotheses that challenges the 1988 carbon testing date has not been proven either.

The "evidence" in favor of the shroud is more sensationalism than actual science. Bibby123 and many others here are not being objective. Take a look at both sides and you will see that the shroud is not as solid as you though it was.

http://shroudstory.com/2015/05/09/colin ... -of-maybe/

JLAfan2001 wrote:It seems to me that a scientist by the name of Collin Berry has reproduced the shroud image quite well. He managed to create the image, front and back, on the linen using materials from medieval times. The image also has 3D properties and a negative. Also, don't let anyone fool you into thinking that human blood was found on the shroud. It was not conclusive. At best, all we know is that it is primate's blood. It has not been proven that the image was produce by a laser or UV. A similar patch was produced using those techniques but they failed once it got past a certain size. Bilirubin was not found in the blood and even it it was, no amount of it can turn blood a bright red since bilirubun is orange. The "pollen" found on the shroud also has not been proven to come from the middle east. Lastly, the repair hypotheses that challenges the 1988 carbon testing date has not been proven either.

The "evidence" in favor of the shroud is more sensationalism than actual science. Bibby123 and many others here are not being objective. Take a look at both sides and you will see that the shroud is not as solid as you though it was.

http://shroudstory.com/2015/05/09/colin ... -of-maybe/

Straw, meet grasping.

RE the blood:
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf

The conclusion:
In summary, the preponderance of
current scientific evidence indicates that:
(i) there is blood on the Shroud of Turin;
(ii) the blood is of primate, i.e. human
origin; and (iii) the blood type is most
likely AB as determined by forward typing
methods, specifically mixed agglutination
and immunohistochemistry techniques.
Expression of the Rh factor (AB positive
or AB negative) remains to be determined.

JLAfan2001 wrote:It seems to me that a scientist by the name of Collin Berry has reproduced the shroud image quite well. He managed to create the image, front and back, on the linen using materials from medieval times. The image also has 3D properties and a negative. Also, don't let anyone fool you into thinking that human blood was found on the shroud. It was not conclusive. At best, all we know is that it is primate's blood. It has not been proven that the image was produce by a laser or UV. A similar patch was produced using those techniques but they failed once it got past a certain size. Bilirubin was not found in the blood and even it it was, no amount of it can turn blood a bright red since bilirubun is orange. The "pollen" found on the shroud also has not been proven to come from the middle east. Lastly, the repair hypotheses that challenges the 1988 carbon testing date has not been proven either.

The "evidence" in favor of the shroud is more sensationalism than actual science. Bibby123 and many others here are not being objective. Take a look at both sides and you will see that the shroud is not as solid as you though it was.

http://shroudstory.com/2015/05/09/colin ... -of-maybe/

Again JLAFAN your the one sensationalizing Colin's experiment . What's amazing is that I actually responded to you directly .
I'm sorry to say my old friend , but you have become totally irrational in your claims , I stopped taking you seriously anymore .

In our Facebook discussion you also stated that it's proven that Nde's are brain based. When I asked for proof you gave none .
Luis you almost admitted that your scrupulosity was behind your dogmatic anti God position , but then you backed out.

This will be my last direct response to you my friend be uses you need help and we talked about this many times .
You have major scrupulosity my friend . This is not said in jest. It's said because u are my friend and I care about your well being. Put all this down and please get some help .

PaulSacramento wrote:RE the blood:
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf

The conclusion:
In summary, the preponderance of
current scientific evidence indicates that:
(i) there is blood on the Shroud of Turin;
(ii) the blood is of primate, i.e. human
origin; and (iii) the blood type is most
likely AB as determined by forward typing
methods, specifically mixed agglutination
and immunohistochemistry techniques.
Expression of the Rh factor (AB positive
or AB negative) remains to be determined.

Paul , it's no use JLAFAN has an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the shroud . He needs to address this issue first in order for him to move on and be able to look at the evidences in a normal way .

For the latest summary of the shroud study check this 2 hour video by Dr. McQuaid, forensic pathologist and shroud expert.

Thanks Byblos...nice catch

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Thanks Byblos...nice catch

I'm almost done with it now, very fascinating. You may want to stop at the 1:30 hr as the rest is recounting of the passion rather than anything scientifically related to the shroud.

You may want to stop at the 1:30 hr

thanks... 2 hours phewww, 1-1/2 better... will watch this afternoon when I get back...

Byblos wrote:For the latest summary of the shroud study check this 2 hour video by Dr. McQuaid, forensic pathologist and shroud expert.

Byblos nice find , I'll defiantly find time this week to watch this .

Byblos wrote:For the latest summary of the shroud study check this 2 hour video by Dr. McQuaid, forensic pathologist and shroud expert.

Intelligent, but he sounds like he's having a heart attack while giving that brief.

SoCalExile wrote:

Byblos wrote:For the latest summary of the shroud study check this 2 hour video by Dr. McQuaid, forensic pathologist and shroud expert.

Intelligent, but he sounds like he's having a heart attack while giving that brief.

Lol, I know, very annoying to listen to him but the man knows his stuff.

Byblos wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:

Byblos wrote:For the latest summary of the shroud study check this 2 hour video by Dr. McQuaid, forensic pathologist and shroud expert.

Intelligent, but he sounds like he's having a heart attack while giving that brief.

Lol, I know, very annoying to listen to him but the man knows his stuff.

Yeah, he gets his stride about 20-30 minutes in.