Evidence for God from Science

""Imagine giving two people each a square of graphpaper divided into 1mm squares, and ask them both to scribble randomly on their papers with pencils. When the two pieces of paper are compared, there will inevitably be many equivalent 1mm squares which both show pencil marks, and a great many more which both don't show pencil marks. It may well be that the number of squares which show pencil on one sheet but blank on the other is less than the number of 'congruent' squares. It seems that some people would conclude from this that the scribblers had fortuitously drawn almost identical scribbles, although a simple side by side comparison would show how different they were""

I'm sorry Hugh again this paper shows more then just going out and finding random points of congruent matches .

Here is what the paper actually says

""Regarding the blood stains, Miñarro explained that the marks found on the two cloths have morphological differences, but that “what seems unquestionable is that the sources, the points from which blood began to flow, correspond entirely.” -

This is as far from going out and finding random congruent matches as you can get .
this isn't random at all

Hugh if you want to believe that there are no congruent matches here you are free to but don't try to tell us that there is no evidence for this . I see a bias here , what I have a hard time determining is why ?

Now explain to us all Hugh how these kinds of congruent matches are like asking 2 people to scrabble on a piece of people then finding matches .

I can only find 2 explanations for you coming to this conclusion
1. Dogmatic delusional denialism
2.you don't want the shroud to be authentic

Oh yes Hugh I forgot to mention that it was determined from both cloths that the size of the nose was found to measure 8 centimeters .
Please let us all know here how a measurement like this could be made by giving 2 people a sheet of paper and Allie g them to scribble and then find congruent matches.

These people are experts in this area Hugh and you most definitely are not .

Hugh everyone has a bias here and we readily admit it . Why not admit the same i.e. That if this I do is true your 14th century belief is finished

We don't even need a c14 testing of the sudarium asits history is well known and not disputed .

I'd like to see you do the Hugh wiggle on this one

OK, Bip - you can let your machine gun cool off now, if just for a bit (hear's him reloading) - I think you just killed it!

Thank you, Bippy, for illustrating my point so clearly. Abandoning my comment on the Shroud, you elect to concentrate on the Sudarium, about which very little can be confirmed. I hope your statement "your favorite cloth the sudarium" was ironic, as I know very little about it, mostly because so little has been published. It is certainly not my favourite cloth. Readers following this conversation will have noticed my comment that "There is no published evidence for any of these statements. Various reputable authors of impeccable integrity believe them, and refer to them, but I have never seen any evidence to substantiate their belief, in spite of continuous inquiry." I am well acquainted with the work of Mark Guscin, for example, my predecessor in the British Society for the Turin Shroud, but he did not originate any of the statements quoted by Bippy, and gives no references to where the primary sources might be. Was it dated? Twice? Was it bloodtyped? How do we know?
Rather aggressively, I think, Bippy wants to "crush" my opinion that the Shroud is medieval ("finished, destroyed, obliterated"). Unfortunately, the evidence he has for doing so rests on a paper he has never read, by a sculptor, "using forensics and geometry." I do not believe the paper will be anything like as definitive as he hopes, but agree that, if it really does match the wounds on the Shroud as precisely as claimed, it would indeed imply that the Shroud of Turin was made earlier than the radiocarbon test indicated.

bippy123 wrote:These people are experts in this area Hugh and you most definitely are not.

Have you any evidence to support either of these statements? Abuse is so much more compelling if it is not based merely on prejudice, wouldn't you say? Have a look at Shroud Scope. There's a "ruler" to help you. Measure the length of the nose. What were your start and end points? Can you be certain they are the same start and end points as somebody else's? What does 8cm actually mean? Between 7.5 and 8.5cm? Or exactly 8.0cm? The "nose" on the sudarium of Oviedo is even less well defined. To declare that both noses are the same length is more wishful thinking than mensuration, I fear.

Bippy,

Thank you for calling in to work sick, so you can post here.

But seriously, you really do a great job keeping up with this thread!

hughfarey wrote:Thank you, Bippy, for illustrating my point so clearly. Abandoning my comment on the Shroud, you elect to concentrate on the Sudarium, about which very little can be confirmed. I hope your statement "your favorite cloth the sudarium" was ironic, as I know very little about it, mostly because so little has been published. It is certainly not my favourite cloth. Readers following this conversation will have noticed my comment that "There is no published evidence for any of these statements. Various reputable authors of impeccable integrity believe them, and refer to them, but I have never seen any evidence to substantiate their belief, in spite of continuous inquiry." I am well acquainted with the work of Mark Guscin, for example, my predecessor in the British Society for the Turin Shroud, but he did not originate any of the statements quoted by Bippy, and gives no references to where the primary sources might be. Was it dated? Twice? Was it bloodtyped? How do we know?
Rather aggressively, I think, Bippy wants to "crush" my opinion that the Shroud is medieval ("finished, destroyed, obliterated"). Unfortunately, the evidence he has for doing so rests on a paper he has never read, by a sculptor, "using forensics and geometry." I do not believe the paper will be anything like as definitive as he hopes, but agree that, if it really does match the wounds on the Shroud as precisely as claimed, it would indeed imply that the Shroud of Turin was made earlier than the radiocarbon test indicated.

bippy123 wrote:These people are experts in this area Hugh and you most definitely are not.

Have you any evidence to support either of these statements? Abuse is so much more compelling if it is not based merely on prejudice, wouldn't you say? Have a look at Shroud Scope. There's a "ruler" to help you. Measure the length of the nose. What were your start and end points? Can you be certain they are the same start and end points as somebody else's? What does 8cm actually mean? Between 7.5 and 8.5cm? Or exactly 8.0cm? The "nose" on the sudarium of Oviedo is even less well defined. To declare that both noses are the same length is more wishful thinking than mensuration, I fear.

Hugh, these people have been part of the center that have been studying the sudarium for a pretty long time . Now your trying T say that the nose could be a bit off on either cloth . No high the reason why you don't like the sudarium is that you can't wiggle and bring your best weapon into this discussion which is chaos and doubt .
Very few experts in the sudarium agree with you .

Does Mark guscins
Does Janice Bennett
Does anyone from the Spanish center of sindology who have done the real legwork here .

The real reason you won't post much on the sudarium is that nothing from the sudarium agrees with your 14th century belief , in fact all relevant study disagrees with you Hugh

Actually the measurement for the nose on the sudarium is 8.0000000009 centimeters and the measurement of the nose on the shroud is 8.0000000008 centimeters . I seriously doubt that you attack any evidence that supports your view from an extreme sceptical angle.

No Hugh once I see you trying to make excuses on something like the sudarium I simply won't let go .
I make no excuses for my passion here on this subject and I won't hide it ad everyone knows it lol
Hopefully one day Hugh you will be able o teach that point yourself

RickD wrote:Bippy,

Thank you for calling in to work sick, so you can post here.

But seriously, you really do a great job keeping up with this thread!

Rick I swear I haven't laughed in a long time , leave it to you to bring a good chuckle out of me

I gave a few rides at pacific beach then took a small break as this cold made me a bit groggy . Rick you are one if the better Richards out there . I know a certain family member that isn't lol

Hugh asked for evidence of the Spanish teams expertise . You know what Hugh I have to give up . I have now fully realized that your brilliant (I do have respect for your intellect ) and unbiased ( of course sarcasm ) scientific mind I must admit that your right , that I don't have any evidence for the expertise of any members of the Spanish center for sindonoloy

Guys I give up I'm sorry but hugh is correct on this one

Oops flash alert I just found some evidence , dang it I hate when this happens

http://wk.baidu.com/view/33be75d0240c84 ... &re=view#1

Dr. Juan Manuel Miñarro, a sculpture professor at the University of Seville
Jose delfin villalain blanco Ph.D. Professor of forensic medicine at the university of Valencia Spain

Oops did that link just say Ph.D. Forensics medicine professor ??

Hugh I agree with you man , I don't believe a word this link is saying .

I know how we can confirm this!!!!

We need to call upon the atheist website silly beliefs and I'm sure they will find a way to shoot this info down .

It's a conspiracy I tell you .

Rick can we confirm that the university of Valencia actually exists .

I think it's a conspiracy to make us believe that the sudarium is made by those aliens from the movie independence day .

Guys believe me when I say that the movie isn't really science fiction .

Ok seriously I think we should throw this guy out that had the Ph.D. In forensic medicine and instead include Hugh's expertise in this area as he has a ???

Oops no degree in this area but I say we use Hugh's evidence cause he dresses well .

I'll be back Got a ride request from some English chaps . Going to the 99 cent store to get some tea to brew . Got my curtsy down flat

Hi Bippy,
Well done for doing your best; I'm so sorry your last few comments sound a bit bitter.

Very few experts in the sudarium agree with you.

With what do they not agree? All I have done is ask for some confirmation that the evidence quoted for the sudarium actually exists. If Mark Guscin, Janice Bennet or anyone else has some, they have been remarkably reticent in presenting it.

All relevant study disagrees with you Hugh.

You may be right! I just haven't seen any relevant study. Have you? If so, where?

I seriously doubt that you attack any evidence that supports your view from an extreme sceptical angle.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is nothing about the medieval origin of the Shroud that I have not queried to the limit of its evidential possibilities.

Hugh asked for evidence of the Spanish teams expertise.

No, I didn't. I asked for the expertise of some people you vaguely referred to as "some people". The only Spanish person you mentioned was a sculptor, not a forensic blood expert, who, you claim, is able to identify the points on large areas of bloodstains representing the source of the blood on the underlying body. Now you have managed to find Jose Delfin Villalain Blanco, who is indeed a renowned and respected forensic scientist, and whose views should be taken seriously. Do you know what they are, and what evidence he has for them? Historian Mark Guscin and Journalist Janice Bennett are also serious students of the sudarium. What have they researched, do you know?

We need to call upon the atheist website silly beliefs and I'm sure they will find a way to shoot this info down.

Why not do so, then, and tell us what you find? I have, and found some rather rude remarks, but essentially saying much the same as myself, although unlike them, I think the sudarium did once wrap the head of a bloodstained man. What I find insufficient evidence for is that it wrapped the head of the same man as that depicted on the Shroud. If you have any evidence for that - and I look forward to being able read Professor Miñarro's findings - then your increasingly desperate and bitter sounding retaliations to my perfectly pleasant and reasonable comments would carry so much more weight, don't you think?

Hugh it looks to me like your getting a bit emotional
These studies have been shown .

What I find funny Hugh is that you referred to all this as giving 2 people sheets of paper and allowing them to scribble to find congruent matches .

this is an absolute laugh Hugh , if you call it desperate to refer to experts on their study it tell me that you are the one whose desperate.

Hugh are you a forensic expert ?
Absolutely not

So your saying that the sudarium wrapped the head of a blood stained man that happened to match the blood stains on the man of the shroud ???

When I said some people you know that I meant the Spanish team and now that I found a few people on the team you are changing your story .

Hugh my advice is to look in the mirror and see the real high
It's starting to seep out slowly

Your answer to my Nde question told me everything. Needed from you .

The Royal British shroud journal must have lost their minds when they made you editor


Stop trying to feign ignorance

Why not be a man and admit that you were desperate and you were shown to be wrong .

Your an extreme anti shroud guy .
Why not tell us the real reason why you are against it Hugh .

I can smell this a mile a away and so can everyone here

Guys here is an example of what I mean when I say I smell a rat
As I said Hugh I don't underestimate you at all which is why I love to keep track of your posts

Hugh is so extreme in his 14th century theory that he refuses to objectively admit that he might be wrong so he must find s way to twist every thing up like a pretzel .

Guys I want you to look at the pic here and tell me and Hugh if there is any sign of bruising on the left side of the pic .

Again high I'm asking you to come clean and tell us the real reason why you have an emotional bias against the shroud .

For once be honest man and you can stop with the bs that you are being objective cause we both know it simply isn't true .



Notice that high accused me of dodging his posts on the shroud and as I have already truthfully said I simply do t have the time to expose him on every detail plus all I need to do is show his bias and it all starts to crumble .

Hugh I'm curious as to why I haven't seen you this aggressive when engaging atheists ?



Guys take a look at this pic and tell me if you can spot the swelling that Hugh says doesn't exist . Please everyone here make an individual post and honestly let me know if you can or can't see any signs of bruising or battering on the cheek , the eye or any area .

https://shroudstory.com/2014/04/26/how- ... -markings/
Hugh's post ""As for the nose and cheeks, there is, very properly, no sign of any bruising or battering on the Byzantine portraits.""

O.K.On the glorius Pantocrator? Are you crazy? Nevertheless, look at the Sinai painting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spas_ ... _sinay.jpg It is a face of a boxer, isn’t it?

I await your responses guys
Remember if you do see these signs then Hugh's little dogmatic theory is flushed right down the toilet

Notice here that I don't need to rove the shrouds authenticity in this argument . I'm here only to focus on my best friend Hugh farey

hughfarey wrote:We scientists, bippy, rarely make dogmatic statements like "your belief [...] has almost no evidence to support it."

This post right here is laughable Hugh . I have constantky stated that science is littered by dogmatic philosophical statements .

Hugh have you done what I asked and asked undergraduate students what they know about the current evidence for ndes from the experts in this field ?
I bet that you will ever do that .

Have you checked the 2013 study on the late brain surge in cardiac arrest rats that received so much press even though the scientist when interviewed on the skeptiko blog totally backtracked on her statements that this is evidence for ndes ?

In neuroscience itself there is both a materialistic and an atheistic bias

Even physicist Lawrence Krauss laughed at ndes and said they are obviously being caused by the brain .

Here we have a very prominent person in the field if neuroscience making dogmatic statements about ndes and even using a peer reviewed Nde study from renowned Nde scientist dr pim van lommel to twist his study to make it seem like he agreed with her on ndes being caused by the brain .

This is an Oxford educated professor here so Hugh your statement is false

https://youtu.be/7a6ZaivvCnE

Hi Bippy,
For some reason the discussions pages of God and Science were unavailable (at least from the UK) yesterday, so I'm sorry if my reply has been delayed. Once again you have made a series of unsubstantiated attacks without being able to answer the simplest of scientific questions: "Where is the evidence?" I have repeatedly said that science does not accept random supposition, but otherwise have not denied, let alone refuted any of your points, because there is nothing to deny.

These studies have been shown.

Where?

So your saying that the sudarium wrapped the head of a blood stained man that happened to match the blood stains on the man of the shroud ???

Not at all. I'm saying I have no evidence to suggest that it does. Have you? Where?

Royal British shroud journal

Eh? I think there are some members of the British Society for the Turin Shroud who regret the appointment of a scientist, yes; but I think there are many who appreciate the opportunity to understand how an objective study of an object is carried out.

Why not be a man and admit that you were desperate and you were shown to be wrong.

I will, with a good grace, as soon as you show me some evdidence. Have you got any? Where?

Your an extreme anti shroud guy.

Not at all. No one would be happier than myself to see the Shroud proved genuine. I have repeatedly, even over the last few days, admitted that the weight of evidence is finely balanced. A little evidence from you could change my mind. Have you got any? Where?

Hugh is so extreme in his 14th century theory that he refuses to objectively admit that he might be wrong.

Have you in fact read anything I have written? I know it is a common ploy to suggest that one's opponent is getting desperate, but really, Bippy, this is absurd - refuse to admit I might be wrong? - I have consistently on this very site in the last few posts admitted that I might be wrong! What is the matter?

look at the Sinai painting. [...link...] It is a face of a boxer, isn’t it?

No, of course it isn't.

2013 study on the late brain surge in cardiac arrest rats.

Hooray!! A reference to some evidence!! At last! (Rushes off to Google "Late Brain Surge". Waits with excitement! Yes! there is one single reference! Unfortunately it is to Bippy's post of a few days ago.) Sorry Bippy, no joy. Can you be a bit more specific? Can anybody else come to Bippy's rescue?

I have already truthfully said I simply do t have the time to expose him on every detail plus all I need to do is show his bias and it all starts to crumble.

You don't need to "expose" me on any detail. You most certainly do have the time to find just one single piece of evidence for any one of your increasingly bizarre claims that I could examine for myself. That's what scientists do.

Oh, well, enough already. Bippy, a suggestion. Don't reply immediately. Don't reply for several days if that's what it takes. I won't assume you've given up; I'll assume you are using the little time you have to find some good scientific references to support your case, rather than battering ineffectually at my incomprehension. And good luck!

This is an enormous thread with almost 100 pages.

As overbearing as it might be to read from the start, really, there are a lot of things that have been covered scientifically and the like along the way. From the start, I wasn't just skeptical, just read my opening post in this thread. I kind of believed the shroud to be one of those Catholic endorsed relics used to garner money from indulgences. However, I did end up changing my opinion and eating my words over time.

FL also, came in scoffing and calling it stupid. Why even bother with the shroud. Such was my opinion too. There's better reasons, certainly no shroud is needed. And yet, as he read through the thread, FL changed tune too.

Storyteller, while more open-minded perhaps than what FL and myself were, too started reading from the beginning. Then there are others here who'd by no means quickly jump on the bandwagon such as Philip and RickD.

Further to this, we have a private mod area where we discuss the running of the board... and the topic once came up whether to keep this thread pinned to the top of the forum. An awful lot seemed to be pinned on the shroud's authenticity. We'd hate people to just believe in Christ on account of the shroud so some mods at the time felt awkward. But then, as time went by those concerns fell to the wayside, and it is just what it is, the shroud that is. The thread still remains pinned to this way at the top of this forum area.

It's not of crucial importance to our faith in Christ, but certainly, we shouldn't be surprised to find confirmation and many past historical things to do with Christ and Christianity. So then... Hugh, many of us were once very much skeptics. I'd encourage you to take the journey from the beginning of the thread and read as far as your interest is peaked. I find it interesting, that those who actually spend time reading through the posts from the beginning -- take it as a journey in learning about the shroud rather then trying to reach an end point of proving or discrediting it's authenticity -- actually end up surprised.