Evidence for God from Science

Byblos, that was a good video... it was uncomfortable as he sounded like he was talking with asthma.. couldn't catch his breath... first half hour was the worst of it to get used to... very good content. He must have been one of the originals after STURP with all the references he used.

I think it's interesting the topic has garnered so much attention, both good and bad. You can usually tell if a topic has legs if it's contains both opinions to such a degree. Will be seeing more of this in the future cause now it's like a dog on a bone for both sides. I like the way it's turning out so far.

There's a lot more dancing going on from the antagonist point of view.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Byblos, that was a good video... it was uncomfortable as he sounded like he was talking with asthma.. couldn't catch his breath... first half hour was the worst of it to get used to... very good content. He must have been one of the originals after STURP with all the references he used.

I think it's interesting the topic has garnered so much attention, both good and bad. You can usually tell if a topic has legs if it's contains both opinions to such a degree. Will be seeing more of this in the future cause now it's like a dog on a bone for both sides. I like the way it's turning out so far.

There's a lot more dancing going on from the antagonist point of view.

Essential, I like the emote hehe.
Yea antagonists do lots of dancing and yet they will dance so far away from any positive discvery like the recent dirt analysis from the sudarium of Oviedo which closely matches the dirt from Golgotha . It really causes lots of emotional responses from Christian as well as atheist anti authenticists .

bippy123 wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Byblos, that was a good video... it was uncomfortable as he sounded like he was talking with asthma.. couldn't catch his breath... first half hour was the worst of it to get used to... very good content. He must have been one of the originals after STURP with all the references he used.

I think it's interesting the topic has garnered so much attention, both good and bad. You can usually tell if a topic has legs if it's contains both opinions to such a degree. Will be seeing more of this in the future cause now it's like a dog on a bone for both sides. I like the way it's turning out so far.

There's a lot more dancing going on from the antagonist point of view.

Essential, I like the emote hehe.
Yea antagonists do lots of dancing and yet they will dance so far away from any positive discvery like the recent dirt analysis from the sudarium of Oviedo which closely matches the dirt from Golgotha . It really causes lots of emotional responses from Christian as well as atheist anti authenticists .

Do you have a link?

SoCal : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... oud_2.html

and this, from another site: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/ ... turin.html

Other similarities exist. Three species of pollen on the Sudarium match the pollen on the Shroud. It contains traces of pollen not only from Palestine, but from Africa and Spain, indicating the journey it took on its way to Oviedo. On the Shroud there are also traces of pollen from Syria, Turkey, Greece and France, revealing a completely different route. Of great significance is a table showing the regions of provenance of the plants whose pollens have been found on the Shroud. No fewer than 48 of them are typical of, and in some cases exclusive to, the environs of Jerusalem. The European representation of pollen is completely outweighed, which is not what one would expect if the Shroud were a fake created in Europe.

Scientists believe both cloths touched the same face within hours of each other. A technique known as Polaroid Image Overlay, applied to the frontal stains on the Sudarium produced no less than 70 points of coincidence with the corresponding area on the Shroud. Bloodstain patterns indicate that the Sudarium was placed over the head of the man on the cross before he was taken down from it. It was then removed before the body was placed in the shroud. - See more at: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/ ... 40dh8.dpuf

EssentialSacrifice wrote:SoCal : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... oud_2.html

and this, from another site: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/ ... turin.html

Other similarities exist. Three species of pollen on the Sudarium match the pollen on the Shroud. It contains traces of pollen not only from Palestine, but from Africa and Spain, indicating the journey it took on its way to Oviedo. On the Shroud there are also traces of pollen from Syria, Turkey, Greece and France, revealing a completely different route. Of great significance is a table showing the regions of provenance of the plants whose pollens have been found on the Shroud. No fewer than 48 of them are typical of, and in some cases exclusive to, the environs of Jerusalem. The European representation of pollen is completely outweighed, which is not what one would expect if the Shroud were a fake created in Europe.

Scientists believe both cloths touched the same face within hours of each other. A technique known as Polaroid Image Overlay, applied to the frontal stains on the Sudarium produced no less than 70 points of coincidence with the corresponding area on the Shroud. Bloodstain patterns indicate that the Sudarium was placed over the head of the man on the cross before he was taken down from it. It was then removed before the body was placed in the shroud. - See more at: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/ ... 40dh8.dpuf

Essential , it is clues like these that make the forger theory simply ridiculous . No forger would go to the trouble of going to Jerusalem and springing pollen on both relics to fool a medieval audience . It makes no sense .
And the points if congruence just add to this.
Whoever believes that the shroud is the work of a forger simply hasn't studied the shroud on a deep level

Here is a new Shroud link that I found earlier today, I hope you all think it's interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTqM4SVBSWE

Here is a 1 hour video from cambride trained art historian thimas de Wesselow . If you guys remember I brought his name up quote a bit on this thread . What's unique here is that de Wesselow is an unbeliever , an agnostic that is convinced by the evidence ve that the shroud is the burial shroud of The historic Jesus and the image is that of the historic Jesus .

I haven't had time to watch it yet but I'll try to make time this weekend.
I heard de Wesselow then goes on to say that he believes the image was caused by a mallard reaction (same theory as Ray Rogers theory), but here de Wesselow leaves on tiny detail out

A mallard reaction can only be caused by a body that has decomposed and the image on the shroud shows no decomposition. It's too bad de Wesselow's very good grasp of art history in comparison to the shroud is offset by his biased view against the supernatural .

https://vimeo.com/117793165

Just started watching this . What I didn't know before that Wesselow just deviled in this video was that his phd in art history was in 14th century history, and his research convinces him that this couldn't be -a forgery , not only be uses it doesn't match the artistic style of 14th century art but it doesn't match the art style of any century .
Fascinating presentation so far because he comes at it from the point of view of an agnostic .

bippy123 wrote:Just started watching this . What I didn't know before that Wesselow just deviled in this video was that his phd in art history was in 14th century history, and his research convinces him that this couldn't be -a forgery , not only be uses it doesn't match the artistic style of 14th century art but it doesn't match the art style of any century .
Fascinating presentation so far because he comes at it from the point of view of an agnostic .

Yeah,thanks for posting this.I watched it myself and he makes a very good case that it is not a forgery or 14th century art piece based on the kind of art then and comparisons with the shroud yet he is somehow not totally convinced.He still seems to not know about the new science about the shroud or doesn't bring it up.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Just started watching this . What I didn't know before that Wesselow just deviled in this video was that his phd in art history was in 14th century history, and his research convinces him that this couldn't be -a forgery , not only be uses it doesn't match the artistic style of 14th century art but it doesn't match the art style of any century .
Fascinating presentation so far because he comes at it from the point of view of an agnostic .

Yeah,thanks for posting this.I watched it myself and he makes a very good case that it is not a forgery or 14th century art piece based on the kind of art then and comparisons with the shroud yet he is somehow not totally convinced.He still seems to not know about the new science about the shroud or doesn't bring it up.

Abel, de Wesselow has a bias against the supernatural and miracles and that is why he won't allow even the possibility of the resurrection being a reasonable explanation for the shroud image . Instead he opts for the mallard reaction which has already been debunked . Ray Rogers also tried to push this theory because he started that he doesn't believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature .

It's more an emotional bias the a scientific or rational one .

Anything new with this?

Here is a new and rather recent shroud presentation....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGvkWv1sYj0

New Shroud Article (plant DNA from around the world) - calling Bippy!!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... world.html

But as one astutely commented: "But it has been all over the place, handled by so many and displayed, so no wonder it has DNA of the world on and in it!"

Hey Philip, I was on the shroud story blog which is neutral on the shroud and they found no problems with this , plus some info shows Dan from India so the shroud could have spent some time in India . The apostle who was in India was no ne other then the doubting apostle thomas . Maybe thomas could have had possession of the shroud for a very short time before he was killed by a spear in India . I'm betting shroud researchers will start to focus more on India for late first century evidence for the shroud

This should get interesting , I'll also have a look at that article as well.
I'll try to pop in from time to time buddy, hope all is well with you and yours
God bless you my friend
Bippy

Hi, Bip!

Here's some more detail on recent pollen evidences and speculations on the Shroud - posted on foxnews today:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/ ... cmp=hplnws

I would add this:

IF it is an ancient fake - at least prior to 1300 - then HOW could anyone have accomplished it AND have also gotten all the right variables? NO methodology of the time could produce this. And even if some alchemist living during the middle ages DID implausibly have the ability, what would be his motivation for going through what it would take to do so? Given that easily faked relics would have more than sufficed to fool the gullible, especially in a pre-scientific age? So, even the earliest known reference to the Shroud shows that its age means the technology didn't exist to create such a marvel. And, that even if it had existed, someone going to the lengths that it would take to fool modern scientific analysis and laser scanning - well, WHY would they go to that level of trouble and effort???!!! That is laughable!

And, here's the other thing, even IF some rare individual utilizing some elaborately unknown technique would have gone to the extremes this would have taken, that means there was planning behind it, and likely, also it was commissioned. In other words, great planning, time and likely money were involved. So, some great fraud is plotted - against WHOM? What we know of the Shroud is very obscure. IF someone went to this trouble, you can bet it would have been trotted out to deceive on a level that certainly would have been known with some fanfare FAR before history reveals its existence. And yet, the early references to it are very subtle, certainly not flamboyant or hyperbolic - actually, quiet and humble.

The other thing I think is very powerful is that only a negative image of it produces the awe-inspiring positive. So why, WHY, pre-photography, would someone try to make such a thing? OH, almost forgot - it has three-dimensional spatial imagery. So, if you think this is a fake, you have to ask how and why, and by whom was it created, by whom was it financed, and why there's no early church or other record that would likely have been mentioned by someone, somewhere having produced some "relic" of such brilliance, breath-taking detail, having gone to such effort to do so.