Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:OK, Bipster, don't explode, but look what Fox News lists today as a religious hoax (2nd one down): http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/ ... p=features

You might want to send the perps some key refuting evidences.

I'm in shock Philip. Fox news?????
That is the last place I thought I'd hear misinformation about the shroud.
And on top of that they are using Nickells stuff as part of it loooooool.
A guy with no scientific credentials in a science related article loool.

I feel like calling Fox news right now , but then again, they did have that idiot Penn Jillette on red eye.
I hope they have a response section in there as I'm on my iPod right now.
I'm in shock.
I expected this bs from CNN and ABC but Fox news?????
Now do you guys see the bias that the shroud is up against from the media folks. This is an insult to anyone that has really researched the shroud.
Arghhhhhhh

bippy123 wrote:

Philip wrote:OK, Bipster, don't explode, but look what Fox News lists today as a religious hoax (2nd one down): http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/ ... p=features

You might want to send the perps some key refuting evidences.

I'm in shock Philip. Fox news?????
That is the last place I thought I'd hear misinformation about the shroud.
And on top of that they are using Nickells stuff as part of it loooooool.
A guy with no scientific credentials in a science related article loool.

I feel like calling Fox news right now , but then again, they did have that idiot Penn Jillette on red eye.
I hope they have a response section in there as I'm on my iPod right now.
I'm in shock.
I expected this bs from CNN and ABC but Fox news?????
Now do you guys see the bias that the shroud is up against from the media folks. This is an insult to anyone that has really researched the shroud.
Arghhhhhhh

Well then, it looks like we can officially close this thread now. If Fox News says it's a hoax, then it must be a hoax. We all "know" that Fox News is the last bastion of unbiased, unprejudiced journalism.

While I think that Fox does a good job of putting across much of what the larger, liberal media ignores, they are in fact marketing a BRAND. They are merely doing what ALL media does, as they play to what they think THEIR audience wants to hear. Plus, look at all of the slutty celebrity junk they put on their website. As well as all of their pop psychology articles that only offer worldly views of morality and/or sexuality. They are playing both sides of the road, at least on some things. They are not without bias, despite often being a much-needed counterpoint to much of the brain-dead, one-sided news other media often report.

Philip wrote:While I think that Fox does a good job of putting across much of what the larger, liberal media ignores, they are in fact marketing a BRAND. They are merely doing what ALL media does, as they play to what they think THEIR audience wants to hear. Plus, look at all of the slutty celebrity junk they put on their website. As well as all of their pop psychology articles that only offer worldly views of morality and/or sexuality. They are playing both sides of the road, at least on some things. They are not without bias, despite often being a much-needed counterpoint to much of the brain-dead, one-sided news other media often report.

Fox News is off the wall. Especially when they kowtow to Romney.

It doesnt look like there is a place to respond to this article but I will respond here. If its between CNN and Fox I still have to choose Fox Rick cause I cant vote for the democratic party especially with them taking out God out of the DNC platform. Its a shame that the guy who wrote this article wasnt fired for terrible research.
Im not a Romney Fan either but Obama is Obama.


http://www.shroudfaq.com/114.htm

In referece to the wikipedia text, the Pierre d'Arcis memorandum (14th century) what was being written at the time challenges the memorandum. Pierre's peers doubted his veracity and questioned his motives.
It was all about money. Pierre was the bishop of Troyes. The Shroud was being exhibited at nearby Lirey; and it was to that
town that pilgrims with bags of coins were flocking.

Scientific data, proves without any doubt, that the shroud does not contain any paint pigments in sufficient quantities to
form an image, makes the entire claim moot.




http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Crazy/darcis.html


A French bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, was trying to stop and exhibit of the Shroud. He drafted a letter to the pope claiming that
an artist had confessed to painting it. Not many people took him seriously then. Not many historians do not take him
seriously today.

Several documents have been discovered that challenge both his honesty as well as his motives. Pilgrims were the problem.
Rather than visiting his cathedral in the city of Troyes, France, they were visiting the small church in Lirey to see the
purported burial shroud of Christ. And that is where they were spending their money. Money was needed for ongoing
construction on the cathedral. There were shrines for four saints, although, admittedly, no one seemed to know who two of
them were. Troyes was famous as the founding city of the by then outlawed Knights Templar.

Though Pierre was possibly not the first to challenge the authenticity of the Shroud, he certainly wasn't the last.
The document is still referenced by skeptics even though its contents are suspect; even though it has now been scientifically
proved that the Shroud was not painted.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrmA1H6wFPU
In fact none of the copies of the letter have been proven genuine, and none of the copies of the letter are signed or dated.
There is no proof t5hat the pope ever saw it, or that it was ever delivered to him. In fact the pope allow it to be exhibited
the whole time. There is also no evidence that it is in the handwriting of the bishop it is claimed to be. It is simply
estimated that is it from 1389. The artist or forger is not named, and there is no transcript of any official investigation.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebatesOn ... sage/24086

Shroud of Turin is not a Painting

In 1978, Walter McCrone claimed that he found some chemicals that are consistent
with tempura paint. However, he is the only scientist, among many who have
examined actual fibers from the Shroud, to make this claim. Every other
scientist who who has actually examined the Shroud of Turin (or some of the
collected fibers and particles) disputes his findings. See Ray Rogers'
explanation below. Also see: Walter McCrone and the Shroud of Turin and The
d'Arcis Memorandum

Now, in 2004, we know that the images are the result of a complex carbon bond
within a very thin layer of starch and saccharides that coat the outermost
fibers of the cloth. The Shroud, under the supervision of several scientists,
was observed with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry,
x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Fiber observations were made
by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser­microprobe Raman analyses, and
microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or painting media was found.

See: Pictures of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin

Ray Rogers (see curriculum vitae summary below) responds to the question: "How
do you know that the image on the Shroud of Turin was not painted?"

The primary goal of STURP [The Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978] was to
test the hypothesis that the Shroud's image was painted, as claimed by Bishop
d'Arcis in 1389. If it had been painted, some colored material had to be added
to the cloth, but the colored material would have gone through the fire of 1532.
The pigments and vehicles would have suffered changes in response to the
heating, the pyrolysis products, and the water used to put the fire out. No
changes in image color could be observed at scorch margins.

We tested all pigments and media that were known to have been used before 1532
by heating them on linen up to the temperature of char formation. All of the
materials were changed by heat and/or the chemically reducing and reactive
pyrolysis products. Some Medieval painting materials become water soluble, and
they would have moved with the water that diffused through parts of the cloth as
the fire was being extinguished. Observations of the Shroud in 1978 showed that
nothing in the image moved with the water.

The Shroud was observed by visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared
spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Later
observations were made by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser­microprobe Raman
analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or media was
found.

Your eye sees colors when the surface absorbs some wavelengths of light and
reflects others. A red surface absorbs all visible wavelengths other than red.
Each chemical compound absorbs wavelengths that are characteristic of its
chemical structure. The best way to determine the properties of a color is by
measuring its spectrum. Reflectance spectrometry was one of the most important
contributions of the STURP observations.

The reflectance spectra in the visible range for the image, blood, and hematite
are shown in the figure. The image could not have been painted with hematite or
any of the other known pigments. The spectrum of the image color does not show
any specific features: it gradually changes through the spectrum. This proves
that it is composed of many different light-absorbing chemical structures. It
has the properties of a dehydrated carbohydrate.

There is no evidence for significant amounts of any of the many pigments and/or
dyes that could have been used to paint or touch up the blood stains. We had
considered and studied Tyrian purple (6,6'-dibromoindigo) and Madder root dye on
an aluminum and/or chromium mordant as well as cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) and
ferric oxide pigments.

During and before the 14th Century, gold metal was the most important yellow.
That would easily be detected by x-ray fluorescence. Other pigments in common
use were yellow ocher (hydrated Fe2O3), burnt ocher (hematite Fe2O3) and other
ochers, orpiment (As2S3), realgar (AsS), Naples Yellow (Pb3[SbO4]), massicot
(PbO), and mosaic gold (SnS2). Organic dyes included saffron, bile yellow,
buckthorn, and weld. Madder root began appearing in Europe from the Near East
about that time. Many of the dyes required mordants, which are hydrated oxides
of several metals (e.g., aluminum, iron, and chromium). In order to produce the
shadings observed in the Shroud's image, the concentrations of pigments would
have to vary across the image. No variations in any pigment were observed by
x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. The image was not painted with any inorganic
pigment of an appropriate color.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of ... inting.htm


All of these facts dont even count the hungarian pray codex which was here about 160 years before this supposed letter and the shroud head image blood stains matching the sudarian blood stains in congruence making the shroud at least as old as the sudarium. This is one of the most ignorant articles ever written.

Probably the last time Fox News takes a shot over Bippy's bow, eh? Kinda like they threw a big brick at him and then he unleashes an arsenal of artillery fire back at them. Too bad they don't know it.

Philip wrote:Probably the last time Fox News takes a shot over Bippy's bow, eh? Kinda like they threw a big brick at him and then he unleashes an arsenal of artillery fire back at them. Too bad they don't know it.

Hehe
I would love for the guy who wrote that article to come here with those half-baked pseudo-facts about the shroud.
He would get shredded the same way Obama did tonight
Id finally have a steady job at fox news as a writer and he could audition to be Penn Jillet's helper in his magic act and maybe the 2 idiots could make each other disappear
Philip, good find on that article.
Maybe I'll email my response to Shawn Hannity

More on AB blood type from Dan Porter's blog

In response to an earlier posting on the upcoming BTST meeting, there has been much discussion about when the AB blood type first appeared in history. AB blood type has been reported in skeletal remains that are approximately 1,600-2,000 years old (Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 47: 89-91, 1977), and in tissues of mummies from 3 B.C. to 4th century (Forensic Science International, 43: 113-124, 1989). These studies were done using serological methods (antibodies), which recognize the ABO molecules on the surfaces of blood cells (see Figure below). As ABO antigens are also found in many organisms including bacteria, fungi, and insects, the issue of “false positives” is often mentioned when discussing blood typing of ancient samples (see “Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review, available on shroud.com, for a detailed discussion).

An alternative method for blood typing exists, which involves molecular biology (DNA) techniques to probe for the genes responsible for conferring ABO blood type. Because human red blood cells (RBCs) lack a nucleus, this method evaluates gene expression in white blood
cells (WBCs), or other nucleated cell types (see Figure below). In this technique, which uses the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify DNA, possible issues with false positives due to bacteria are circumvented because it is the (internal) gene responsible for encoding the surface antigens that is being evaluated. Unlike the surface antigens which may be similar in humans & bacteria, human ABO genes are easily distinguished from DNA of other organisms. While this may seem like the method of choice for analyzing ancient samples, such studies are often precluded because of DNA degradation issues. Indeed, for typing studies of aged bloodstains, more reports exist in the literature using serological (surface) analysis relative to molecular (DNA) analysis.

Within the past couple of years, I have written to numerous scientists who specialize in the fields of anthropological and molecular evolution (my research background is in cell biology & immunology) to inquire about the origins & appearance of the AB blood type. Specifically, I asked what is the first human or human-related sample that has typed as AB using molecular biology (DNA) methods; and when is the AB blood type believed to have emerged in human history? The consensus from the answers I received is represented in several specific responses quoted below, “ABO systems have not been widely analyzed in ancient remains [using molecular biology techniques], there are very few papers on the blood system.” “There certainly is controversy as to when group B (and thus AB people) emerged.” A specialist at Harvard replied, “It is CERTAINLY [his caps, not mine] well before 10,000 years ago”, “some place the origin of B @ 100,000 years ago.” “I am very sure it was long before 1,000 years ago-based on DNA divergence from the primordial group A gene”. One of the world’s foremost authorities on the molecular analysis of the ABO blood group, whose laboratory first cloned the human ABO genes, was quite adamant in his response that D’Adamo’s claims that the AB blood type is only 1,000 years old “does not fit with the current theory of the evolution of the ABO gene”…and “is not based on scientific evidence”.

In the literature, the few samples that have been analyzed (by molecular DNA techniques) are reported as O; for example, 2 Neanderthals analyzed by Lalueza-Fox in 2008, and Otzi the 5,300 year old “ice man”. In the current population, ~44% of people are type O, compared to ~5% for type AB (A and B are 35% and 17%, respectively). Thus, perhaps it is not that surprising with such a very limited amount of DNA studies reported, type O would be more prevalent. Clearly, much more work remains to be done in this particular area, especially in relation to molecular analysis of aged samples.

Great Find Swimmy. This article just shows that type AB blood is MUCH older then once thought. It totally blows away D’Adamo’s claim that it started appearing just 1000 years ago. This is yet another nail in the coffin of the skeptics claims that there was no type AB blood during Jesus's time. Every door that the skeptics open seems to close fast when it comes to the shroud. Remember the blood found on the sudarium is also type AB as well as with the miracle of Lanciano.

Here's another Bippy, let me know what you think.

A priest has a post on his blog here in which he engages a rabbi. He says the following:

To me the most telling point about the Shroud is that it is covered by a certain kind of limestone dust. Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago and Joseph Kohlbeck, Resident Scientist at the Hercules Aerospace Center in Utah, identified the dust as travertine aragonite limestone, having the exact same chemical signature as the limestone of the empty tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. That type of stone is unique in all the world. Anyone who has been to Jerusalem and seen that lovely pink-golden limestone glowing in the sunset knows it is unique. “Jerushalayim shel zahav… Jerusalem is golden….”

Byblos wrote:Here's another Bippy, let me know what you think.

A priest has a post on his blog here in which he engages a rabbi. He says the following:

To me the most telling point about the Shroud is that it is covered by a certain kind of limestone dust. Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago and Joseph Kohlbeck, Resident Scientist at the Hercules Aerospace Center in Utah, identified the dust as travertine aragonite limestone, having the exact same chemical signature as the limestone of the empty tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. That type of stone is unique in all the world. Anyone who has been to Jerusalem and seen that lovely pink-golden limestone glowing in the sunset knows it is unique. “Jerushalayim shel zahav… Jerusalem is golden….”

Please pardon this shroud ignoramus if this has been mentioned before in this 28 page thread. How do we know what Jesus' tomb was made of?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:Here's another Bippy, let me know what you think.

A priest has a post on his blog here in which he engages a rabbi. He says the following:

To me the most telling point about the Shroud is that it is covered by a certain kind of limestone dust. Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago and Joseph Kohlbeck, Resident Scientist at the Hercules Aerospace Center in Utah, identified the dust as travertine aragonite limestone, having the exact same chemical signature as the limestone of the empty tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. That type of stone is unique in all the world. Anyone who has been to Jerusalem and seen that lovely pink-golden limestone glowing in the sunset knows it is unique. “Jerushalayim shel zahav… Jerusalem is golden….”

Please pardon this shroud ignoramus if this has been mentioned before in this 28 page thread. How do we know what Jesus' tomb was made of?

Rick because all of the tombs in jerusalem have this rare limestone in them. It doesnt really matter which tomb in Jerusalem people say Jesus was buried in, because all the tombs in jerusalem contained travertine aragonite limestone.

This is just one of the many compelling evidences that place the shroud in jerusalem. This doesnt take into account the many BUNCHED microscopic pollen samples found of many different flowers in Jerusalem. What also makes the pollen evidence compelling is that the flowers that they represent only bloomed during the spring.

What monumental event happened in spring?
The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of course

Byblos wrote:Here's another Bippy, let me know what you think.

A priest has a post on his blog here in which he engages a rabbi. He says the following:

To me the most telling point about the Shroud is that it is covered by a certain kind of limestone dust. Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago and Joseph Kohlbeck, Resident Scientist at the Hercules Aerospace Center in Utah, identified the dust as travertine aragonite limestone, having the exact same chemical signature as the limestone of the empty tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. That type of stone is unique in all the world. Anyone who has been to Jerusalem and seen that lovely pink-golden limestone glowing in the sunset knows it is unique. “Jerushalayim shel zahav… Jerusalem is golden….”

Byblos, this yet another nail in the coffin of the theory that the shroud was a forgery.
Imagine a middle age forger having someone travel to the tombs of jerusalem to get this rare limestone for him to have it placed on the tomb of Jesus, even though no one has the equipment to detect the type of limestone found on it. On top of that placing bunched microscopic pollen samples on the shroud predicting one day modern science many hundreds of years later would detect it. These 2 evidences alone make it proposterous for any rational person to think that this was a forgery of any kind.

I like this find Byblos because it comes from a rabbi, someone who can be at least impartial to this evidence and at most be hostile towards it.

Bippy wrote:
Rick because all of the tombs in jerusalem have this rare limestone in them. It doesnt really matter which tomb in Jerusalem people say Jesus was buried in, because all the tombs in jerusalem contained travertine aragonite limestone.

Ok. From what the quote said, I thought it was specific to Christ's tomb only.

having the exact same chemical signature as the limestone of the empty tomb of Christ in Jerusalem.

See what I mean? Almost like they found the tomb of Christ.

Rick, and remember these are just a few of the amazing evidences found on the shroud, and the evidence just keeps getting stronger.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... turin.html

Stephen Jones rocks. Here is shows the connection between the shroud of Turin and the image of Edessa, in which an early writing says it was folded "doubled four times" and the word that was used is

The Greek word tetradiplon is a compound of tetra ("four") and diplon ("doubled)," hence "four-doubled." In all of known ancient Greek literature, tetradiplon occurs only in connection with the Image of Edessa. Its first known occurrence is in the Acts of Thaddeus, a sixth century update of an earlier (c. AD 400) story in the Doctrine of Addai, about Edessa's King Abgar V (c. 4 BC-AD 50) receiving an image of Jesus imprinted on a cloth. The sixth century Acts of Thaddeus added new information to that earlier story that the cloth was a sindon (a large linen sheet) which was tetradiplon ("four doubled"):

So this word was only used here in the whole of greek literature to describe the folding of the image of edessa, and when Dr John Jackson of Sturp did his sophisticated Rake Lighting on the shroud, lo and behold, he finds the same creases on the shroud and these folds end up in the same way of the tetradiplon folding in the image of Edessa. This is yet another devastating blow to the middle age forgery theory. This also fits perfectly with the Christ pentocrator of 550ad and the other iconographs of that time that have so many points of congruence with the shroud of turin that in a court of law it would be indisputably proven that the shroud of turin was the original that was used to create these iconographs from.

This is consistent with major foldlines at one-eighth intervals, found on the Shroud by Dr John Jackson from raking light photographs of the Shroud taken in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).