Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: And yes, of course [extensive C14 dating to the 14th century] would put SOME doubt in my mind and say SOME simply because, as I have pointed out over and over, the C14 dating is onlY ONE line of evidence [...]

Temporarily assuming the image is supernatural in origin, would my extra C14 dating to the 14th century convince you that God for some reason put the supernatural image on a 14th century cloth?

If you say "No", then you would be ignoring the demonstrated reliability of the top radiocarbon dating labs, and further discussion with you of anything scientific, much less the shroud, is pointless.

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, by provisionally assuming that you will say "Yes" to the above question, I'll begin the follow-up to your supernatural image issue ...

PaulSacramento wrote: Then of course we have the simple fact that NO ONE has been able to explain, much less duplicate the image with MODERN technologies MUCH LESS those from the 14th century.

Professor Luigi Garlaschelli (and Joe Nickell before him) produced strikingly plausible image reproductions using 14th century technology/chemicals, including the supposedly impossible photo negative effect that the forger almost surely was neither aware of nor intending. For the explanations and the photos see: https://sites.google.com/site/luigigarl ... production.

So as a starting point, clearly and concisely state the most important item that you think is clearly an impossibility for a talented 14th century forger. And then cite your sources.

PaulSacramento wrote: No one realized [the shroud] was an image until the invent of photography, [...]

Huh?! Everyone in the 14th century knew the shroud was an image of a man. You seem to be just making stuff up.

There is so much wrong in what you posted, not to mention the fact that after I gracious answered your post, you didn't answer mine, all that leads me to conclude that not only are you NOT paying ANY attention to what is been stated AND the various information being posted BUT that you are NOT here to debate this honestly.

Seriously, I can't believe you even brought up that silliness of Garlaschelli !

Something that no one on either side of the debate actually take seriously !

I am beginning to doubt your sincerity in this.

In regards to Garlaschelli:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf

And that doesn't even address all the OTHER characteristics that the shroud has that Garlaschelli didn't even begin to address.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... _of_turin/

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedi ... gerWeb.pdf

I personally would like to see new Carbon 14 testing done, properly supervised/scrutinized, and on an unmistakable original portion of the Shroud. If there are significant problems with using Carbon 14 to date such a fabric, I'd like to know what they are? Thing is, Scripture being true or Christ having been resurrected does not lie within whatever ultimate reality the Shroud truly represents. And it either IS the resurrected Jesus burial cloth or it is not. So, any certifiably reliable testing that can be done, I see no problem with. But I don't know what issues might be involved in the Carbon 14, if any. We just must know what are the limits of ANY testing - what can they and what can't they realistically be expected to show us. But what I DO know is that arguing about testing that was done on a far later portion/a repair or anticipated future testing not yet done is silly, it solves nothing.

Here is a new interesting article about the Shroud and the Sudarium...

http://aleteia.org/2016/04/11/new-study ... me-person/

Short answer: THEY MATCH!

DRDS wrote:Here is a new interesting article about the Shroud and the Sudarium...

http://aleteia.org/2016/04/11/new-study ... me-person/

Short answer: THEY MATCH!

Great find bro .
This is a new research coming from the team in Spain connecting the shroud to the sudarium using forensics and geometry .
Gonna read this tomorrow and if it's true it makes the forgery theory even more ridiculous .

Again, MULTIPLE lines of evidence are telling us that the shroud is FAR older than the C14 dating.
Multiple lines of evidence are telling us that a 14th century artist could NOT have made the image on the shroud with ALL the characteristics.
Multiple lines are telling us that, even with 21st century technology, we have NOT be able to replicate it.

These are facts.

PaulSacramento wrote:Again, MULTIPLE lines of evidence are telling us that the shroud is FAR older than the C14 dating.
Multiple lines of evidence are telling us that a 14th century artist could NOT have made the image on the shroud with ALL the characteristics.
Multiple lines are telling us that, even with 21st century technology, we have NOT be able to replicate it.

These are facts.

Correct Paul but there are people that don't want these facts to be true . I guess when a heart had been hardened nothing can convince them

Philip wrote:I personally would like to see new Carbon 14 testing down, properly supervised/scrutinized, and on an unmistakable original portion of the Shroud. If there are significant problems with using Carbon 14 to date such a fabric, I'd like to know what they are? Thing is, Scripture being true or Christ having been resurrected does not lie within whatever ultimate reality the Shroud truly represents. And it either IS the resurrected Jesus burial cloth or it is not. So, any certifiably reliable testing that can be done, I see no problem with. But I don't know what issues might be involved in the Carbon 14, if any. We just must know what are the limits of ANY testing - what can they and what can't they realistically be expected to show us. But what I DO know is that arguing about testing that was done on a far later portion/a repair or anticipated future testing not yet done is silly, it solves nothing.

Philip what do you think of mark antonacci's proposal to test the shroud for neutrinos ? He's had a petition for this for a while .

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Again, MULTIPLE lines of evidence are telling us that the shroud is FAR older than the C14 dating.
Multiple lines of evidence are telling us that a 14th century artist could NOT have made the image on the shroud with ALL the characteristics.
Multiple lines are telling us that, even with 21st century technology, we have NOT be able to replicate it.

These are facts.

Correct Paul but there are people that don't want these facts to be true . I guess when a heart had been hardened nothing can convince them

The sad part is that they are so consumed to NOT believe because of what that would mean that they fail to see the amazing discovery for what it is.
Heck, NO one faith is tied to the shroud and if it would be proven to be from the 7th century and of someone other than Jesus the reality would NOt effect Christian faith at all AND would still be amazing !

Thanks Paul for digging up the info on Luigi Garlaschelli's supposed replication of how the Shroud might have been created.

I find the following two outtakes very interesting:

"The only 3-D photography available seems to be that of the “final reproduction” (second experiment), Fig.5, but there is no doubt that its characteristics might be essentially the same than those of the 3D properties of the ochre-only image. It is not a true 3D: it is almost only made of “flat plateau” (contact) and “valleys” (no contact) with abrupt “vertical cliffs” between them. To the contrary, the Shroud has true 3D properties, i.e. fine variations of the “altitude”. The well-known 3D image of the face of the Shroud image shown in Fig.4 is the first one obtained with the famous VP8. But since this time, thanks to the progress of the digitalized image processing (also after the removing of the effect of the “bands” which “hides” the lateral parts of the image of the face), many other 3D pictures of the Shroud image have been obtained."

"We must realize that the “modern artists and researchers” (including LG), know that they have to work in such a way that they have to produce a Shroud-like image with these properties (half-tones and the related true 3D characteristics). Up to now they all failed. What is the probability for a medieval forger, who obviously could not have in mind these properties, to produce by chance an image having these properties? Probably about 0%."

The final sentence, immediately above, says it all! No medieval forger would have had any concept of this 3-D spatial imagery business, nor any simple - or even complex (can't be replicated today) way of achieving what is on the Shroud. Factor in the specifics of the geographic area of pollens found, that are only found in the Jerusalem area, and the whole medieval forger theory just becomes more and more absurd. And a simple painted image would have been far more than what would have been needed to fool people during medieval times - making absurd the extreme efforts one would have need to take to even replicate the feeble attempts of moderns HAVING the knowledge of the 3-D spatial imagery - knowledge that an ancient forger did not have. Add in the documented and dated history of the Sudarium, which clearly matches in so many contact points with the Shroud, shows that the Shroud had to be at least as old.

I would advise anyone trying to refute the Shroud evidences, while trying to pass off modern and failed attempts at replication, to first do their research before floating the same old discredited stuff that is constantly passed around online. And, I would suggest also they carefully start combing through key links given in this thread. There are quite a few people on this forum who initially dismissed the Shroud's potential genuineness (and I was one of them), who subsequently changed their minds after being challenged to go through the evidences presented on this thread. But if one starts with the premise that there is NO way Jesus was God, that He sprang back to life after having physically died, then they will assume that the Shroud HAS to have some very simple explanations. And they also will probably be very unaware of the intense technical scrutiny it has endured - by experts in relevant fields, using the most cutting edge of technical analysis available.

One needs to go beyond what someone CLAIMS they've refuted - to see what the responses have been to such claims. Do the refuters of such claims merely say "that's not true," or do they give evidences to the contrary?

The reality is, Philip, that if a person truly is open minded and looks for what has been written on BOTH sides we can see that the vast majority of the evidence points to the shroud NOT being a forgery and being much older than the 1300's.
For every statement or research or evidence against the shroud's legitimacy, all you have to do ( if you truly want the truth) is to look for the counter -arguments.
It doesn't take much time either as I found the information to counter LG silly claims rather quickly and easy.

But all that other stuff aside, if a carbon dating happened again...
would you accept the result if it came back 14th century?

Kurieuo wrote:But all that other stuff aside, if a carbon dating happened again...
would you accept the result if it came back 14th century?

Only if the OTHER lines of evidence can be addressed.

We have to ALWAYS remember that ANY archaeological or historical finding is dated with VARIOUS lines of evidence and not just one.

In the case of the shroud what needs to be addressed is NOT just the C14 dating but all the other evidence includinG HOW it was done.

Now, IF they do C14 dating on the image AND they address the other lines of evidence AND the match with the saudaurium AND are able to show how a 14th century artist would be able to do it, THEN we would have to accept that the shroud was from that time period.

Again, multiple lines of evidence and proof is needed.

Well, the one thing that would make me doubt a second carbon 14 coming up with a medieval date is the Sudarium, which has a known history, at least back to about 614, is that it matches up so many perfect points of congruity with key aspects on the Shroud. That can't be coincidence, and it means that the Sudarium and the Shroud were used on the same body and that it proves the Shroud is far older than the date indicted by the botched carbon 14 test.

From Shroud.com:

The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the Sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the Sudarium , perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the Sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.

A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.

The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the Sudarium , comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the Sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo Sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.

Read more, here: https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm