Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:One wonders if we can use blood to date the body/sample...

Not sure Paul, good question though but I haven't seen anything about this from shroud study literature.
Maybe that's something that can be developed sometime in the future, but you really will see me jump through my roof when the holland labs announced that they have found the complete holographic information in the the shroud image. I believe this will be the critical mass point that will cause the whole world to sit up and take notice .

Swimmy, I just visited the imdb shroud thread. The skeptics haven't even done any homework on the peer reviewed evidence. Their sheer lack of ignorance is appalling especially of that raving lunatic lady that keeps bombarding everyone with massive garbage links of material that's been debunked ages ago, and the one poster who thinks the scorch theory is interesting ,could someone tell him that when an image is formed by a heated scorch the image wouldn't floresc, but the shroud image does. It's 1

Ah you mean CHX.

Watching her post for years. She is absolutely insane and has dedicated her life to debunking Christianity. Shes a poster child for militant atheism. Like the terminator she can't be reasoned with. She could have all her limbs severed and Jesus could could come down and restore them and she would still deny it. Its impossible to be civil with her and I'm close to putting her on ignore. She has a small clique but not even the other atheists on the forum actually don't taker her seriously due to her lack of objectivity .

Speaking of the forum. Its a shame it is overrun by mostly atheists which is ironic. Some of them are decent. But if you noticed very few atheists on the forums actually touched the subject. A few hit and run cause they couldn't support their argument. Same thing happened a few months back when the Italian study on the shroud being authentic. It was mostly crazy lady posting old debunked theories. She really kept dragging out the blood being paint.

bippy123 wrote:Swimmy, I just visited the imdb shroud thread. scorch theory is interesting ,could someone tell him that when an image is formed by a heated scorch the image wouldn't floresc, but the shroud image does. It's 1

Actually a few post later he says.

That looks like an interesting essay, and I will certainly have to read it carefully. I say that because my initial "common sense" thought is that one could scorch the surface of a fabric without affecting it's underlying state; something I have discovered from carelessly ironing the odd shirt or three. Not linen, though.

However, if it turns out that the site is right and it can't have been scorched, then... it can't have been scorched.

I skimmed the site and note that they talk of the image as a sort of caramelisation of the very top surface of the fibres. Reminds me of making "invisible ink" as a kid. Write something on paper in lemon juice and it dries invisible. Then heat the page over a flame, and the writing goes brown. Magic!

Has anyone actually tried tasting the shroud?

Swim opps, I didn't see where he admitted that it wasnt a scorch, he sounds a little more reasonable than chx, but it isn't even close to invisible ink as invisible ink would have been an added substance to the shroud and scientists detected no added substances in the forming of the image. What the sturp team said was was that the very top of the cloth was effected by some momentous event that caused it to change to form that image. Barry schwortz was right at the time when he said that the sturp team could tell us what the shroud isn't but they couldn't tell is what it was .

The recent ENEA tests show that they were successfull in producing a few unique characteristics of the shroud to equal a few centimeters of the image, but that it would take a 5 story laser to produce the rest, and that still doesn't account for the many other characteristics of the shroud. Plus it would have to be a team of
Lasers operating at once because scientists have found that the pixels that form the image was formed one at a time.
Even without the Rogers vanillin tests which state correctly that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old it becomes rediculous and insane to think this technology was available back then, and if so an honest skeptic has to open the door of his or het worldview to the possibility of the resurrection being the only reasonable explanation for that image and what transformed the disciples from wimps to fearless Christians proclaiming the gospel even in the face of death. The pieces of this puzzle fit perfectly.

That crazy lady reminds me of christopher hitchens, alot of shouting but very little sense lol

Oh and I can just picture the look on the faces of the sturp team and the Vatican if they caught someone tasting the shroud lol, there would be a wwe style battle royal on the spot hehe lol

Bippy, as you are into all things concerning the Shroud, let's just hope you also don't have this in your bedroom: http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/ ... n_bedding/

Philip wrote:Bippy, as you are into all things concerning the Shroud, let's just hope you also don't have this in your bedroom: http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/ ... n_bedding/

Wowwww Philip, just when I thought I saw it all about the shroud hehe
How the heck did you find it?
Maybe we should purchase a copy for Dawkins lol
Can you imagine the look on his face when he's ready to go to bed?
Or then again it just might automatically repell itself from his presence

Dawkins was invited to the recent Spain shroud conference and would be given 20000 pounds
If he could give a natural explanation for how that image was formed.
They never heard back from him again lol. He's probably still smarting from the humiliation doctor William Lane Craig gave him when he went to Oxford and left a chair open for Dawkins and Dawkins never showed up lol.
It's been a very bad decade for Dawkins lol.

Oh geez. A new fellow has entered the ring

Ah, "facts".

Stupid question time, have you investigated any of these facts? Have you actually checked the methodology with which they came to these conclusions? Have you looked into the science behind the claims? Did you check the people that did the research and see if they were biased one way or another? Did you check all their findings and not just the stuff they put into the paper?

My guess is no you haven't. I can bring up facts that show the mean temperature of the Earth has increased over the past 100 years and it's all due to the decline of pirates in the oceans. Does that make it real?

I can show you how every 188 days, there's an earthquake somewhere on the planet. Does that mean that every time the Earth is in a certain position in it's orbit around the Sun that somehow this causes an earthquake or is it co-incidence?

I can bring up statistics that show that gun control is both beneficial and detrimental to society at large. Two completely contradictory ideas, each supported by "evidence". How is that possible?

The answer is, you can use almost anything to prove your "facts". It doesn't however mean your facts are accurate.

My response


Pretending to be ignorant is not a good argument. That's your issue [[laugh]]

Show me something concrete. Show me something that can't be explained in any other way. Show me the smoking gun and I will change my tune.

I don't need to show you anything. 13 pages later and you have refuted nothing on this page or demonstrated anything to be wrong.



He has yet to even give another reply. Though he is still active.The nerve to demand concrete evidence after 13 pages that he refused to read. Guy certainly doesn't deserve a valid response

Wow. Just wow. Another response I got.

Why does it look like a face? I was draped over a human body, alegedly.

Take a piece of paper, place it over your face and make marks where you can feel you ears and nose, lay it out flat and decide for yourself if that looks correct.

The shroud looks like a photo-copy of a body.

Swimmy wrote:Wow. Just wow. Another response I got.

Why does it look like a face? I was draped over a human body, alegedly.

Take a piece of paper, place it over your face and make marks where you can feel you ears and nose, lay it out flat and decide for yourself if that looks correct.

The shroud looks like a photo-copy of a body.

Didn't I tell you Swimmy hehehe. I'd love to see this guy on the podium at a shroud conference.
You see how much they are in denial lol.
They will do and say anything to stop themselves from looking at the evidence.
They must do this because if they dared to look at the evidence it would cause serious doubt in their worldview.

Tell this skeptic that I got my 14th century Kodack digital camera ready to make that snapshot. Opps it has 3d spacial information on it . I got my trusty 14th century 3d informational encoder and my trusty 14th century vp8 image analyzer (shhh everyone thinks NASA invented it in the 20th century but they really stole the blueprints from me lol ). Opps Houston we have another problem, there is xray information encoded on that darn shroud . It's ok, I'll just get out my trusty 14th century xray machine, that will fix everyyyyything .
Oops there is no directional light like a photo copy. I knew that darn Kodack was good for nothing (throws the only 14th century Kodack on the ground in disgust). Ok how do I get all of this together one shroud, oops it can't be done.
Arghhhhhhh
Ok how about I just tell them that it's a photocopy and hope that no one exposes my lie.
Who needs science anyways
Oops I forgot to add that even a photocopy is composed of substances to make the copy but the shroud has no added substances to make that image. Ok I give up
It's a photoooooooocopy dangit. Because I saidddddd so.
So there!!!!!!!

There's never a dull moment debating the Shroud, is there? Hearing about some of these skeptics is like a throwback to freshman year at university: SO MANY bad arguments and uninformed comments. Sometimes there's simply no use trying to argue with those that ignore the data. One can only hope that others will recognize that the skeptics are being smashed and decide to do some of their own research.

Good luck.

Swimmy wrote:Oh geez. A new fellow has entered the ring

Ah, "facts".

Stupid question time, have you investigated any of these facts? Have you actually checked the methodology with which they came to these conclusions? Have you looked into the science behind the claims? Did you check the people that did the research and see if they were biased one way or another? Did you check all their findings and not just the stuff they put into the paper?

My guess is no you haven't. I can bring up facts that show the mean temperature of the Earth has increased over the past 100 years and it's all due to the decline of pirates in the oceans. Does that make it real?

I can show you how every 188 days, there's an earthquake somewhere on the planet. Does that mean that every time the Earth is in a certain position in it's orbit around the Sun that somehow this causes an earthquake or is it co-incidence?

I can bring up statistics that show that gun control is both beneficial and detrimental to society at large. Two completely contradictory ideas, each supported by "evidence". How is that possible?

The answer is, you can use almost anything to prove your "facts". It doesn't however mean your facts are accurate.

My response


Pretending to be ignorant is not a good argument. That's your issue [[laugh]]

Show me something concrete. Show me something that can't be explained in any other way. Show me the smoking gun and I will change my tune.

I don't need to show you anything. 13 pages later and you have refuted nothing on this page or demonstrated anything to be wrong.



He has yet to even give another reply. Though he is still active.The nerve to demand concrete evidence after 13 pages that he refused to read. Guy certainly doesn't deserve a valid response

Swimmy, the point is they could easily verify all the info you have them, as most of it comes from peer reviewed science journals, but they won't because they won't like the conclusions. The shroud is a major headache for them for precisely this reason, it hits them on their own turf and it doesn't leave alot of wiggleroom for them to squirm out of.
Good job Swimmy, I bet one day an agnostic or truthseeker will be reading your posts and conclude that you are presenting real evidence and the skeptic is in denial .
I love it:)

Icthus wrote:There's never a dull moment debating the Shroud, is there? Hearing about some of these skeptics is like a throwback to freshman year at university: SO MANY bad arguments and uninformed comments. Sometimes there's simply no use trying to argue with those that ignore the data. One can only hope that others will recognize that the skeptics are being smashed and decide to do some of their own research.

Good luck.

Exactly Icthus, like I said before the shroud isn't for stubborn, biased skeptics as they don't want to be bothered with the facts. The key is that sometime in the future someone on the sidelines will stumble onto Swimmy's posts and it could be the initial breadcrumb that could eventually lead them back home.

Just like it did for Doctor August Accetta who was born a Christian, turned agnostic then converted back to Christianity through his studies of the shroud, and he had a major breakthrough in his research when he decided to swallow potentially dangerous nuclear radioactive material to try and simulate the xray information on the shroud and how some type of radiation coming from within the body of Christ caused this xray info to be projected on the cloth.
The guy has guts lol

Doctor August Accetta who was born a Christian, turned agnostic then converted back to Christianity through his studies of the shroud

Um, perhaps it was just a figure of speech, but how can someone be BORN a Christian? Raised in a Christian family, yes. Born one? No!

Philip wrote:

Doctor August Accetta who was born a Christian, turned agnostic then converted back to Christianity through his studies of the shroud

Um, perhaps it was just a figure of speech, but how can someone be BORN a Christian? Raised in a Christian family, yes. Born one? No!

Your right Philip , bad choice of wording on my part, I meant he was raised in a Christian home.
You are correctomondo