Evidence for God from Science

Thanks for the response, Blippy. I appreciate the answers. As I expected, there was more to the matter than what I thought. But I see you may have another list of objections awaiting you in the other Shroud topic. I'm certainly not what one would call well-versed in Shroud research, but I took the liberty of making a few points based on what I have seen. It looks like it may be a rather lively topic, to put it mildly.

And I certainly hope we're not overtaxing you. It often seems like one stream of questions after another, and I should think it must get rather tiresome.

It's ok Icthus, I do have to watch myself at times because I have extreme scrupulosity but if one person can be helped through this thread then I it is more then worth.
If the lord wants me to keep going how can I say no to the one being that loves me more than anyone in the universe:)
Thank you for thinking of me
I will try to slow down
And I'll check the other shroud thread also

Icthus wrote:Thanks for the response, Blippy. I appreciate the answers. As I expected, there was more to the matter than what I thought. But I see you may have another list of objections awaiting you in the other Shroud topic. I'm certainly not what one would call well-versed in Shroud research, but I took the liberty of making a few points based on what I have seen. It looks like it may be a rather lively topic, to put it mildly.

And I certainly hope we're not overtaxing you. It often seems like one stream of questions after another, and I should think it must get rather tiresome.

Icthus, I just took a look at pierson's thread and while I posted one response I won't be posting there as he is posting the same old garbage that's allready been debunked on this thread and by most of the peer reviewed scientific research.
He originally posted his first response a while back and gave me links from nickell and mccrone, one who has no degree in any scientific field and the latter who couldnt get one of his ideas passed through peer review.

I told you guys if you want to watch an atheist turn totally anti science, anti reason and anti rationality study the shroud and present it to them. I think his goal is just to try to spread the same old tired and debunked ideas in hopes of confusing a newbie.

I won't post there as I would be confusing Pierson with the facts, peer reviewed research,and the scientific method lol.

I can see that Pierson is up to his old tricks again, bring more tired and denied arguments about the shroudlol.
As I said before and I'll say it again, the evidence for authenticity of the shroud is so strong that it will cause the atheist to abandon his supposed love for science, logic , rationality and true research and cling instead to unscientific, pseudoscientific, ignorant conspiracy theories.

I'm not going to give him the pleasure of populating his thread with real researched responses.
Satan loves atheists as he doesn't even have to lift a finger to grab them, their pride does all the work for him, and that's a shame.

bippy123 wrote:As I said before and I'll say it again, the evidence for authenticity of the shroud is so strong that it will cause the atheist to abandon his supposed love for science, logic , rationality and true research and cling instead to unscientific, pseudoscientific, ignorant conspiracy theories.

You might want to take a look at this:
http://ropata.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/ ... erstition/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Irreligion ... perstition

I won't comment on it, and I neither agree nor disagree. I'll leave it for you to evaluate it.

Reactionary wrote:

bippy123 wrote:As I said before and I'll say it again, the evidence for authenticity of the shroud is so strong that it will cause the atheist to abandon his supposed love for science, logic , rationality and true research and cling instead to unscientific, pseudoscientific, ignorant conspiracy theories.

You might want to take a look at this:
http://ropata.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/ ... erstition/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Irreligion ... perstition

I won't comment on it, and I neither agree nor disagree. I'll leave it for you to evaluate it.

Wow, Reactionary I just went through the links u gave lol.
U should see the wild tirade that they went into after it was posted.
I guess they won't be reading the wsj anymore hehe
Very good article

Guys should I post the veoh links to the full documentary fabric of time
Mods or anyone, is this ok?
Its in 3 parts

You guys would absolutely love this one, but the full dvd comes with the 3d glasses so u could view the full hologram made of the shroud image, plus the extras on the sudarium of oviedo and the textile experts they talked to, but the veoh only contains the documentary itself.

Let me know Byblos or anyone?

bippy123 wrote:Guys should I post the veoh links to the full documentary fabric of time
Mods or anyone, is this ok?
Its in 3 parts

You guys would absolutely love this one, but the full dvd comes with the 3d glasses so u could view the full hologram made of the shroud image, plus the extras on the sudarium of oviedo and the textile experts they talked to, but the veoh only contains the documentary itself.

Let me know Byblos or anyone?

If it's related to the subject matter I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Byblos wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Guys should I post the veoh links to the full documentary fabric of time
Mods or anyone, is this ok?
Its in 3 parts

You guys would absolutely love this one, but the full dvd comes with the 3d glasses so u could view the full hologram made of the shroud image, plus the extras on the sudarium of oviedo and the textile experts they talked to, but the veoh only contains the documentary itself.

Let me know Byblos or anyone?

If it's related to the subject matter I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Thank you Byblos

part 1

part 2

part 3

Enjoy folks

I wish to provide a link. Maybe bippy can go over it and the issues raised in it

http://strawshredder.wordpress.com

Swimmy wrote:I wish to provide a link. Maybe bippy can go over it and the issues raised in it

http://strawshredder.wordpress.com

Hey Swimmy, this talking about Colin perry the pseudo scientist who claimed that theshroud was a scorch and that theory was debunked many years ago by the sturp scientists. The shroud.com site has a great search function that shows why the image can't be a scorch, plus he never answered the question I challenged him with as to how a scorch could creat xray information. When I posed the question to him under another screen name he said it was xray like and not X-rays , in other words he dodged my question.

The knowledgable shroud researchers at Dan Porters blog asked him to get this theory submitted to peer review and Colin said that he didn't feel like it loooooool. No skeptic site will fund him even nickel . So it's basically a theory with from an atheist with a good imagination that doesn't feel like answering the challenge and one that no atheist organization would touch with a 10 foot pole, especially after the complete failure of the 2009 atheist organization of italy's funded test to replicate the shroud.

The mountain of peer reviewed research is almost all favoring authenticity.
I can't wait till I have the time to take physicist John Jackson's advanced shroud course at the center in Colorado .
Then I will get a much better grip on the physics behind the shroud image.

On a side note you guys should try to get some I formation on sue benford, as she was one of the 2 people that said that the c14 sample that was tested was a reweave. If it wasn't for her and Marino ray Rogers probably would never have done the peer reviewed chemical analysis that debunked the c14 test.
Interesting that some people claimed that she told them that Jesus told her to have someone recheck that test:)

Guys I can't stress enough how important it is to view the fabric of time, and if you can to get the full DVD which has the extras like the sudarium of Oviedo tests, and the interviews with art and textile experts. I lent my copy to a friend who won't return it.
My friend in Oklahoma bought an extra copy to show at her church. She had never heard of the shroud before and was very excited after she watched it.
God Bless

That's again such awesome stuff Bippy, we need to start calling you "THE BIPPMEISTER"

bippy123 wrote:

Swimmy wrote:I wish to provide a link. Maybe bippy can go over it and the issues raised in it

http://strawshredder.wordpress.com

Hey Swimmy, this talking about Colin perry the pseudo scientist who claimed that theshroud was a scorch and that theory was debunked many years ago by the sturp scientists. The shroud.com site has a great search function that shows why the image can't be a scorch, plus he never answered the question I challenged him with as to how a scorch could creat xray information. When I posed the question to him under another screen name he said it was xray like and not X-rays , in other words he dodged my question.

The knowledgable shroud researchers at Dan Porters blog asked him to get this theory submitted to peer review and Colin said that he didn't feel like it loooooool. No skeptic site will fund him even nickel . So it's basically a theory with from an atheist with a good imagination that doesn't feel like answering the challenge and one that no atheist organization would touch with a 10 foot pole, especially after the complete failure of the 2009 atheist organization of italy's funded test to replicate the shroud.

The mountain of peer reviewed research is almost all favoring authenticity.
I can't wait till I have the time to take physicist John Jackson's advanced shroud course at the center in Colorado .
Then I will get a much better grip on the physics behind the shroud image.

On a side note you guys should try to get some I formation on sue benford, as she was one of the 2 people that said that the c14 sample that was tested was a reweave. If it wasn't for her and Marino ray Rogers probably would never have done the peer reviewed chemical analysis that debunked the c14 test.
Interesting that some people claimed that she told them that Jesus told her to have someone recheck that test:)

Guys I can't stress enough how important it is to view the fabric of time, and if you can to get the full DVD which has the extras like the sudarium of Oviedo tests, and the interviews with art and textile experts. I lent my copy to a friend who won't return it.
My friend in Oklahoma bought an extra copy to show at her church. She had never heard of the shroud before and was very excited after she watched it.
God Bless

I'm actually trying to find that blog but can't. The skeptic who sent the link to me, I asked him. If this guy has the shroud figured out why hasn't he made a exact copy? What is he waiting for if its so easy? Surely someone would want the Fame and Fortune that would come with debunking the shroud.

DRDS wrote:That's again such awesome stuff Bippy, we need to start calling you "THE BIPPMEISTER"

Hehe thanks DRDS. I used the nickname bippy after my dog (poodle) bippy who passed away a while ago. I sure hope our pets make it to heaven, I miss that little guy. bippmeister is perfect. I can hear my poodle bippy with his doggy talk saying "snift woft" . That means awesome dude lol

From what I have gathered:
The skeptics have a series of objections that have ALL been dealt with in various forms, the scientific ones even by "peer reviewed" works.
The one thing that can put the KAIBOSH on the shroud is it being duplicated with ALL characteristics, using methods that were available in the 14th century.
That has not been done, not with 14th century methods OR modern methods.
That about sums it up, yes?