Evidence for God from Science

Part 2

So what we have below Images are on Stephen Jones blog). is a body structure being being encoded 3 dimensionally onto the cloth with varying degrees of intensity. (whew, I hope someone can help me out here hehe). I believe that image is of a 2 dimensional photo taken of the shroud passed through the vp-8 image analyzer, which was used to analyze 3 dimensional topographical terrain on the mars and the moon.

C. Physical Significance of Image Structure on the Shroud

Once it is recognized that the Shroud image was generated from a real human body, a particular set of questions may be asked which otherwise would not be posed if one were to assume that this image was produced in an artist's studio. Immediately, we recognize that the image must have been generated by some principle whereby body structure became encoded into varying shades of intensity on the cloth. The three [330] dimensional brightness surface of Figure 2 makes this point most graphically. If such a mechanism were not operative that could, in effect, convert cloth-body distance to corresponding shades of image intensity, then the computer generated brightness surface would not appear as a physiologically reasonable body shape.

Now we are getting to the freaky part folks. As Jackson showed that images formed by direct contact have high resolution, but lack gradient of intensity, and images formed by diffusion or attenuated radiation (not sure what attenuated radiation is, so any help would be gladly appreciated lol. So with the shroud it has the high resolution from direct contact, but it also has a strong gradient intensity. This is only the tip of the iceberg as to why most , if not all natural explanations fall far short of explaining this .

Obviously, this has occurred to produce the Shroud image, but this conclusion brings forth certain problems. First, how could a physical mechanism act through the space between a body and cloth without blurring anatomical structures that are smaller than the projection distance, e. g., in the region of the lips? In a set of experiments I showed that images formed by direct contact exhibit high resolution, but lack gradation of intensity. On the other hand, images formed by diffusion or attenuated radiation from a body surface to an enveloping cloth contain shading gradations that correlate more or less with cloth-body distance, but suffer significantly in resolution. Yet, the Shroud image displays [331] simultaneously both a shading correlation with cloth-body distance and reasonably sharp focus.

Ill post on the other parts of the article in the coming days.
This should be enough to keep us all busy for a few days

Part 3

A second problem concerns the directional relationship between points on the body to their corresponding image location on the Shroud. For example, a point on the side of the nose might conceivably be mapped perpendicular to the local body surface, or the local cloth surface where point is imaged, or vertically upwards from the nose point onto the Shroud. After careful study, I have concluded that body points are imaged essentially in the vertical upwards direction for the entire frontal image. This conclusion is further reinforced by noting that there are no side images about the frontal image and particularly in the space between the frontal and dorsal heads. If the image formation mechanism discolored the Shroud according to a principle that projected perpendicular to either the body or cloth surfaces, image shading should have occurred along the sides of the body and at the top of the head. On the other hand, a vertical mapping logically precludes shading in these regions where, in fact, no shading is observed.

Whatever the mechanism that caused this image did so in a vertically upward direction, because there is no side image.

We cannot, however, argue that the cloth was held away from the sides of the body as an attempt to explain the lack of side images, or that intervening material, such as burial spices, blocked image formation. Lavoie has shown that the blood feature off the elbow in Figure 1 could only have occurred by direct contact of the cloth with the side of the arm. Thus, the Shroud must have been in intimate contact with the body at that location and, yet, no image discolorations were formed there.

Again, no side images allthough as we can see the body had to have been in direct contact with the shroud because of the blood on the shroud.

A similar argument follows from a consideration of the space between the frontal and dorsal heads. Geometrically, the Shroud must have been in intimate contact with the top of the head, as we have shown by enfolding a human body in a cloth model of the Shroud. Again, no image discolorations can be seen there. A hypothetical chin band may explain part of the void, but it is likely not to have covered the entire head and at the same time tuck neatly under the jaw.

Again no image in the space between the frontal and the dorsal (back) heads, to me it doesnt jive with a body being wrapped as Jesus was wrapped in the shroud.

Folks, this is only part of the problem skeptics have when trying to explain how this image got here.
Ill try to finish a few more points tomorrow as time allows.

Guys my appologies, I have been so busy trying to start an online marketing project that I haven't had the time to finish going through professor Jackson's cloth collapse theory. I will get back to finishing it either this week or the next depending on how fast I get everything wrapped up. My appologies:(

I remember a thread we had on the uncommon descent forum where the shroud came up and a poster with the screen name junkdna4life made a post that described the dilemma of any atheist that tries to debunk the shroud and why the shroud is a thorn in their side.

Here it is
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/ ... -children/

Junkdnaforlife
Dec 04 - 4:18 pm
The shroud is rarely mentioned by the sharper atheists. For fear that the mentioning of it (even for the purpose of mocking), would bring attention to it. It sticks a fork in the “there’s no evidence except for stories in an old book,” mantra. Secondly, when faced with the Shroud, they are put in a position that in order to develop an argument to refute it, they need to circumvent the scientific method, and they end up looking just like the “dogmatic fools” they crusade against.
So the Shroud does two things: 1) Presents empirical evidence for Jesus, supporting to the tiniest detail the Gospel accounts of the Passion event, 2) Forces atheists into desperate faith based arguments which exposes their adherence to the scientific method as simply a tool to cultivate a false sense of authority to the general public in which to advance their ideology, and which (the scientific method) will be abandoned at any time it erodes their position.

I think that sums it up pretty well, bippy. I find it situation with the shroud is similar to that of debate over the resurrection in general. Even if it fails to convince the skeptic, it often forces them into some very odd positions. It's amazing to see the lengths to which some skeptics will go to try to rebut the case for the resurrection or the Shroud--often rather blatantly abandoning that intellectual high ground they often claim in order to cling uncritically to unsound and often uninformed positions, like that Jesus never existed or survived being crucified (I was somewhat surprised to find, recently, a piece by Richard Carrier arguing that there was a very good chance that Jesus could have lived through his ordeal on the cross and everything before and afterward. Needless to say, it was not very convincing, and that's quite an understatement).

I suppose my point is that a truly good debate about the Shroud or the resurrection in generally, even if it fails to convince skeptics, has a way of forcing them to strip down to their presuppositions, which always makes for a revealing discussion to those who pay attention. Regardless of what future tests may reveal concerning the Shroud's authenticity or inauthenticity, it makes an excellent subject for debate, and it deserves more attention than it tends to get. In my experience, a lot of people either don't know about it or consider the debate to be closed (and tend to assume that those who still argue for its authenticity are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society or 9-11 conspiracy theorists). I know I used to think that way. It's a pity, so I'm all the more appreciative of the efforts of those like you who are passionate about Shroud studies and are eager to share information with us Shroud-laypeople.

I'm not so sure about the Shroud as a tool for evangelism, but it's certainly good for opening minds.

Danieltwotwenty wrote: Yes it does say multiple cloth, there is the shroud and the sudarium ( the face cloth), there are your multiple cloths.

Dan

Interesting. So I looked up the face cloth (Sudarium). What do you know, just like the shroud (and every other religious relic) it didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Sudarium was dated back to 700 CE, the shroud 1300 CE, and the true believers made the same ad hoc hypothesis. The dating methods were flawed. For the shroud in particular I have a hard time accepting that some of the best scientists in the field made these simple errors in their analysis. Granted, scientists aren't infallible, but there are so many similarities with the ad hoc hypothesis when it comes to putting these relics to the test. Now it will not be allowed to be re-tested, by the faithful no less.

Bippy, let's say the shroud was re-tested and the results came back the same. What conclusion would you come to based on these results?

Pierson5 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote: Yes it does say multiple cloth, there is the shroud and the sudarium ( the face cloth), there are your multiple cloths.

Dan

Interesting. So I looked up the face cloth (Sudarium). What do you know, just like the shroud (and every other religious relic) it didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Sudarium was dated back to 700 CE, the shroud 1300 CE, and the true believers made the same ad hoc hypothesis. The dating methods were flawed. For the shroud in particular I have a hard time accepting that some of the best scientists in the field made these simple errors in their analysis. Granted, scientists aren't infallible, but there are so many similarities with the ad hoc hypothesis when it comes to putting these relics to the test. Now it will not be allowed to be re-tested, by the faithful no less.

I am not even going to dignify this with a response, maybe Bippy might.

One thing I did notice is that the Sudarium is first mentioned in 570 in an account by Antoninus of Piacenza, which is well before the radio carbon date of 7th century.

Pierson5 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote: Yes it does say multiple cloth, there is the shroud and the sudarium ( the face cloth), there are your multiple cloths.

Dan

Interesting. So I looked up the face cloth (Sudarium). What do you know, just like the shroud (and every other religious relic) it didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Sudarium was dated back to 700 CE, the shroud 1300 CE, and the true believers made the same ad hoc hypothesis. The dating methods were flawed. For the shroud in particular I have a hard time accepting that some of the best scientists in the field made these simple errors in their analysis. Granted, scientists aren't infallible, but there are so many similarities with the ad hoc hypothesis when it comes to putting these relics to the test. Now it will not be allowed to be re-tested, by the faithful no less.

Bippy, let's say the shroud was re-tested and the results came back the same. What conclusion would you come to based on these results?

Seriously, dude. Did you do any research?

You would know that scientific peer review has overturned the dates and then some. This whole thread is filled with evidence. The burden of proof is on the skeptic.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:One thing I did notice is that the Sudarium is first mentioned in 570 in an account by Antoninus of Piacenza, which is well before the radio carbon date of 7th century.

The Sudarium is evidence that Carbon Dating textiles is not a reliable method of dating. One Carbon dating on the sudarium had it at the 7th century. But here's whats funny. Another dating had it at the 14th century.But of course we know the Sudarium is much older than the 14th century date.

Swimmy wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:One thing I did notice is that the Sudarium is first mentioned in 570 in an account by Antoninus of Piacenza, which is well before the radio carbon date of 7th century.

The Sudarium is evidence that Carbon Dating textiles is not a reliable method of dating. One Carbon dating on the sudarium had it at the 7th century. But here's whats funny. Another dating had it at the 14th century.But of course we know the Sudarium is much older than the 14th century date.

I think with this sort of artefact the carbon dating could easily be inaccurate due to being handled, possible smoke contamination from a fire and other environmental factors.

Even when they date dinosaur bones they always say between 10 billion and 20 billion ( just an example, not actual proper dates ), there always seems to be a huge margin for error.

Dan

dating methods give good ranges, not accurate dates :p

Swimmy wrote:You would know that scientific peer review has overturned the dates and then some.

Citation? As far as I've seen, that's not the case.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I think with this sort of artefact the carbon dating could easily be inaccurate due to being handled, possible smoke contamination from a fire and other environmental factors.

Even when they date dinosaur bones they always say between 10 billion and 20 billion ( just an example, not actual proper dates ), there always seems to be a huge margin for error.

Dan

Sure, carbon dating isn't 100% accurate. But to date an artifact only thought to be ~2000 years old, the margin of error isn't THAT great. The older the specimen (dinosaur bones, which are dated using SEVERAL dating methods, btw), the greater margin of error. There have been many hypotheses as to why the shroud may be dated incorrectly (smoke, bacteria, etc...), but if you are off by 1300 years, the amount of smoke/whatever would have to make up the majority of the shroud sample. The shroud was dated to ~1350 CE by carbon dating, by 3 separate prestigious laboratories, and is consistent with the fourteenth-century bishop's report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger and that he had confessed. From what I've read, it seems like the believers of the shrouds authenticity believe the error was due to the sample being taken from patchwork, which textile experts were unable to spot apparently, done in the 15th century (http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF), not contamination.

""Citation? As far as I've seen, that's not the case.""

Pierson you still havent learned yet? Your still clinging to your faith based non scientific, non reason, irrational refutation of the carbon dating. I have allready debunked you so many times and still u stubbornly cling to your fairy tale refuations of the shroud? I would have thought after all the information on this thread that you would pick a more vague subject that you can attack with your fairy tale atheistic worldview. Some people never learn.


http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF this is peer reviewed in the chemical journal of thermochimica acta.

This alone debunked the c14 dating. The vanillin tests show the shroud to also be much older then the carbon dating tests.
On top of this its been proven that the shroud and sudarium were on the same body within a very close time interval. This makes the shroud as old as the sudarium and the sudariums history is indisputable going back to at least 550 ad.

The sturp team made a 26 point recommendation for the einstein secular squad that was in charge of the c14 tests. They ignored it completely and violated 13 protocols during the before and during the testing process. Heck they didnt even do a chemical analysis of the cloth.

Im still busy doing an online project but for someone that loves spreading pseudo science Ill make a post for.
pierson, im sorry for posting this because I dont want to confuse you with the facts. You have every right to follow your FAITH BASED atheistic worldview and to deny science and reason all you want, but for the life of me I cant understand why you keep trying to post about the shroud as its every atheists nightmare.

Try something else my friend, the shroud of turin will only expose atheists for what they truely are, dogmatic extremists who want God not to exist so bad that they will abandon science, abandon reason and abandon common science to deny God. I dont understand what you will gain by exposing your worldview for everyone to see it as it is, but remember one thing my friend. Jesus can forgive anything and as he stated his yolk is easy, so why not stop fighting against the truth and give your heart to him ?

Swimmy wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:One thing I did notice is that the Sudarium is first mentioned in 570 in an account by Antoninus of Piacenza, which is well before the radio carbon date of 7th century.

The Sudarium is evidence that Carbon Dating textiles is not a reliable method of dating. One Carbon dating on the sudarium had it at the 7th century. But here's whats funny. Another dating had it at the 14th century.But of course we know the Sudarium is much older than the 14th century date.

The problem with the sudarium is that it was handled much more then the shroud and it was too contaminated to get an accurate read from a carbon dating, but the history of the shroud is undisputable even by the most hardened antitheists out there. In fact not one sane person would dare to make themselves look like a fool and argue the historical evidence of the sudarium. This isnt even up for discussion anymore. The incredible points of congruence between the shroud and sudarium with the blood stains is also indisputable. Mark guscin and Ian Wilson are the experts on the sudariums connection to the shroud.

Please atheists, if your comfortable being atheists, stay away from the shroud. the more intelligent atheists know this allready.

Again the story of the forger has long since been debunked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrmA1H6wFPU

None of the copies of the letter have never been proven genuine, there is no evidence that it was shown to the pope, and in fact the pope at this time allowed it to be put on display the whole time. Pierson if you bothered to do any research on this instead of looking at just the anti shroud sites like joe nickell etc etc, you would have known that this bishop was losing attendence at his church because of the other church had the shroud. This is an OLDDD argument that pseudo skeptic, anti science, antireason atheists used to try to discredit the shroud. It was debunked a long time ago. At least bring some new pseudo skeptical arguments instead of the old bs. In fact I dont even need to do any research on this letter.
The illustration in the hungarian pray codex itself totally refutes this letter by itself. The hungarian pray codex was from the 1190's , way before this alleged letter showed up.

The arguments against the shroud from the atheists just keep getting more silly as the years go by loooooooool

Let me give you a clue pierson, the shroud isnt a Jesus Christ image on a peanut butter sandwich or window. There is a reason why its the most scientifically studied relic on the face of this earth. Stick to the cheetos images duded lol