Evidence for God from Science

part 1
Ok guys im gonna highlight the technical stuff that I dont understand too well, this stuff is amazing.
Maybe some of you with a more scientific understanding of what this optical engineer is saying can interpret for us.


In 1992 while taking photomicrographs of the 1978 Max Frei samples at the Holy Shroud Guild at Esopus, NY, photos from the arm area showed individual image fibers had very sharp boundaries at their ends across the 15-micron diameter of the fibers. At 200x magnification it is seen that these picture elements, or pixels, are very uniformly darkened about 30% over the natural color of the non-imaged fiber. At the boundary between image pixel and clear fiber, there is a sharp change. There is no gradual edge as expected from a shadow mask or external light source. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discountinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed.
part 2 coming in a bit

ABSTRACT
In 1992 while taking photomicrographs of the 1978 Max Frei samples at the Holy Shroud Guild at Esopus, NY, photos from the arm area showed individual image fibers had very sharp boundaries at their ends across the 15-micron diameter of the fibers. At 200x magnification it is seen that these picture elements, or pixels, are very uniformly darkened about 30% over the natural color of the non-imaged fiber. At the boundary between image pixel and clear fiber, there is a sharp change. There is no gradual edge as expected from a shadow mask or external light source. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discountinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed Ok can anyone explain this part to me?


5. Later John Jackson, showed that the image appears to be perpendicular to gravity, showing only the front and back of the man in the shroud. He also concluded that the image appears only where the cloth was closer than 3.5 cm. to the body
This part I understand, its one of those WOW statements.

Caunkster this is the thing here, as christians from all denominations have an interest with the shroud. As with the historicity of Christianity and the new testament it is also a historical artifact, and while the foundation of our faith and christianity in General doesnt depend on it, its a powerfull suppliment and testimony thats in favor of scripture. If evidences are not to be given high regard by us Christians, then why have so many christian scholars put so much passion, time and effort into studying teh historicity of the new testament and scripture in General as well as bible artifacts?

Butone statement made by you puzzles me. You stated that the shroud to you seems highly unlikely to be authentic. Is that based on the evidences found or just your personal opinion. If its a personal opinion what is it based on?

But you are correct in stating that many have misconceptions of of catholicism that even catholics dont ascribe to themselves, but as far as my knowledge of catholic and church history thats another thread

bippy123, it just seems unlikely and unrealistic to me for a piece of fabric that old to survive in the condition ascribed and I'm familiar with the "artifact" creation industry that existed as it were throughout the middle ages.

I haven't studied it at any great length. It frankly doesn't interest me that much. The study of canonical scripture is not something equatable without assuming the authenticity of the shroud to begin with, so that's a huge stretch.

But as far as I'm concerned knock yourself out. My opinion is more just natural skepticism and not based on much careful analysis.

That's cool canukster, to each their own, but I'm glad people like mark antonacci took it seriously because it brought him to Christ. In all fairness each person is led to Christ in their own. I guess that's the beauty of God and each of his special creations (us human beings).

bippy123 wrote:That's cool canukster, to each their own, but I'm glad people like mark antonacci took it seriously because it brought him to Christ. In all fairness each person is led to Christ in their own. I guess that's the beauty of God and each of his special creations (us human beings).

I think God has a tad what to do with it too.

Byblos wrote:

bippy123 wrote:That's cool canukster, to each their own, but I'm glad people like mark antonacci took it seriously because it brought him to Christ. In all fairness each person is led to Christ in their own. I guess that's the beauty of God and each of his special creations (us human beings).

I think God has a tad what to do with it too.

Just a tad Byblos
Byblos what do you think of the miracle of lanciano? Amazing isn't it:)

I always thought the miracle of lanciano was creepy myself haha

bippy123 wrote:Byblos what do you think of the miracle of lanciano? Amazing isn't it:)

It is amazing, but like any other like it (including the shroud) they are surrounded with skepticism. For example, there is no proof at all that the flesh and blood (though wonderfully preserved for centuries) were actually a communion wafer and wine. There's just no way to prove that definitively. As for the flesh and blood being preserved, as you know both you and I come from a land where there are several incorruptibles (St. Sharbel, Hardini, father Stephan whom I saw with my own eyes, etc). But even incorruptibility in and of itself does not necessarily mean anything since there are non-Catholic incorruptibles (I believe one is Hindu). Now that's not say I don't believe in miracles (I visit St. Sharbel every chance I get) but I would hesitate to call them proofs and rest my theology on them in any way lest they be proven other than what they are claimed to be and my theology is shaken in the process.

I don't know, the miracle of lanciano is just a little "off" for me. I can't say it's not real, but if nothing else it's more symbolic than anything. I mean, that same exact "miracle" then started happening all over Italy after that instance got publicity, right? That seems just too conspicuous for me. Kind of like the fact that every Catholic church seems to have a piece of the "true cross", when obviously that isn't true, otherwise that cross would have been the size of Noah's Ark.

Now I'm not saying I don't believe in miracles either, but I am skeptical of many of them throughout history and I personally think that miracles are more likely to manifest in less obvious ways, I guess. Like, the guy who jumped off the World Trade Center building on 9/11 and lived, that is a miracle in my opinion. Just because it didn't happen to a priest or a nun doesn't make it not a miracle, and by comparison, just because a priest or nun says it happened doesn't make it legit either.

Byblos wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Byblos what do you think of the miracle of lanciano? Amazing isn't it:)

It is amazing, but like any other like it (including the shroud) they are surrounded with skepticism. For example, there is no proof at all that the flesh and blood (though wonderfully preserved for centuries) were actually a communion wafer and wine. There's just no way to prove that definitively. As for the flesh and blood being preserved, as you know both you and I come from a land where there are several incorruptibles (St. Sharbel, Hardini, father Stephan whom I saw with my own eyes, etc). But even incorruptibility in and of itself does not necessarily mean anything since there are non-Catholic incorruptibles (I believe one is Hindu). Now that's not say I don't believe in miracles (I visit St. Sharbel every chance I get) but I would hesitate to call them proofs and rest my theology on them in any way lest they be proven other than what they are claimed to be and my theology is shaken in the process.

Very good point Byblos, also if anything could be proven 100% there wouldnt be a need for faith anymore, and that is why I truely believe that the shroud will never be proven 100%(it will be close but never 100%) as I think God would also not want to take our faith away from us, as faith is a choice as is our choice to Love God.

I visited St. Charbel in 1991, there was a sense of peace I felt there, but my favorite place in lebanon was Harissa, loved the walk all the way up.

bippy123 wrote:Very good point Byblos, also if anything could be proven 100% there wouldnt be a need for faith anymore, and that is why I truely believe that the shroud will never be proven 100%(it will be close but never 100%) as I think God would also not want to take our faith away from us, as faith is a choice as is our choice to Love God.

Exactly, well said.

bippy123 wrote:I visited St. Charbel in 1991, there was a sense of peace I felt there, but my favorite place in lebanon was Harissa, loved the walk all the way up.

That was a long time ago, bippy, you should visit more often. I'm there almost every year. Yeah, the majestic scenery alone from up there is magnificent. PM me your e-mail, I have a wonderful picture of Harissa I'd like to share with you that I think you will love.

Ivellious wrote:I don't know, the miracle of lanciano is just a little "off" for me. I can't say it's not real, but if nothing else it's more symbolic than anything. I mean, that same exact "miracle" then started happening all over Italy after that instance got publicity, right? That seems just too conspicuous for me. Kind of like the fact that every Catholic church seems to have a piece of the "true cross", when obviously that isn't true, otherwise that cross would have been the size of Noah's Ark.

Now I'm not saying I don't believe in miracles either, but I am skeptical of many of them throughout history and I personally think that miracles are more likely to manifest in less obvious ways, I guess. Like, the guy who jumped off the World Trade Center building on 9/11 and lived, that is a miracle in my opinion. Just because it didn't happen to a priest or a nun doesn't make it not a miracle, and by comparison, just because a priest or nun says it happened doesn't make it legit either.

To an extent I agree. Miracles are highly personal and I believe are meant to convey a specific message for a specific person at a specific time. That some miracles become public knowledge is just a byproduct of our curiosity and serve as a reminder of who is in control, rather than function as proof of one theological system as opposed to another.

Ivellious wrote:I don't know, the miracle of lanciano is just a little "off" for me. I can't say it's not real, but if nothing else it's more symbolic than anything. I mean, that same exact "miracle" then started happening all over Italy after that instance got publicity, right? That seems just too conspicuous for me. Kind of like the fact that every Catholic church seems to have a piece of the "true cross", when obviously that isn't true, otherwise that cross would have been the size of Noah's Ark.

Now I'm not saying I don't believe in miracles either, but I am skeptical of many of them throughout history and I personally think that miracles are more likely to manifest in less obvious ways, I guess. Like, the guy who jumped off the World Trade Center building on 9/11 and lived, that is a miracle in my opinion. Just because it didn't happen to a priest or a nun doesn't make it not a miracle, and by comparison, just because a priest or nun says it happened doesn't make it legit either.

Ivellious, thats the problem with some miracles as they tend to get copycat'ed for publicity and money. Yes I also believe that Miracles happen to ordinary people and in fact most miracles do happen to ordinary people.
The incredible part of the miracle of Lanciano is the fact that it has lasted since the 8th century uncorrupted without anything being used to preserve it.
The vatican allowed one man to study it but they really dont want anyone handing , prodding and touching it because in our faith the eucharist is an extremely important part of our faith. Its doesnt have the peer review evidence behind it that the shroud has exactly because of this. To us the eucharist is much more important then any shroud.

The vatican has gotten alot tougher on its miracle research before it officially declars them miracles and I do believe that the vatican even hires atheist doctors and scientists and sends them to the events to make sure there is no natural cause for these miracles. I believe this was instituted sometime in the late 20th century I think. The catholic church is very carefull
these days about officially declaring miracles.

What the shroud is, is that its an important bread crumb left for us that I call a good supplemental, and it exposes atheists for their true agendas as it causes them to abandon their logic, science and reason because it points against their worldview. Joe Nickell accuses the sturp team of being heavily biased on the shroud but the fact is he is so far from the truth it isnt even funny. You have everyone from agnostics, Jewish people, spiritualist and christians of all denominations that were on that team. To give u an idea about the amount of peer review evidence it has, I have studied it obsessively for over 2 years and I still am learning something new each day.

Mark Antonacci has been studying it for 20 years and he still hasnt gotten through it all.

Byblos wrote:

Ivellious wrote:I don't know, the miracle of lanciano is just a little "off" for me. I can't say it's not real, but if nothing else it's more symbolic than anything. I mean, that same exact "miracle" then started happening all over Italy after that instance got publicity, right? That seems just too conspicuous for me. Kind of like the fact that every Catholic church seems to have a piece of the "true cross", when obviously that isn't true, otherwise that cross would have been the size of Noah's Ark.

Now I'm not saying I don't believe in miracles either, but I am skeptical of many of them throughout history and I personally think that miracles are more likely to manifest in less obvious ways, I guess. Like, the guy who jumped off the World Trade Center building on 9/11 and lived, that is a miracle in my opinion. Just because it didn't happen to a priest or a nun doesn't make it not a miracle, and by comparison, just because a priest or nun says it happened doesn't make it legit either.

To an extent I agree. Miracles are highly personal and I believe are meant to convey a specific message for a specific person at a specific time. That some miracles become public knowledge is just a byproduct of our curiosity and serve as a reminder of who is in control, rather than function as proof of one theological system as opposed to another.

I 99% agree with you Byblos, except in some special cases like the miracle of fatima which Mary specifically answered the little girls request when God showed the miracle for all the people present there to see and believe.

Something interesting I saw when I was watching a Kent Hovind presentation of all things. He personally does NOT think the Shroud of Turin is authentic. And to him, the reason being is that from what he knows about Jewish burial in the 1st. century and also from his interpretation of scripture, he thinks after Christ was taken off the cross He was wrapped just like an Egyptian mummy in linen strips. I was wondering if Bippy or anyone else where knows if 1st. century Jews did this or not? Also from what I heard Hovind say where he reads in the story of Lazarus when Christ healed him he came out of the tomb bound hand and foot and thus that lead him (Hovind) to believe that 1st century Jews were buried just like Egyptian mummies. I was mostly curious is this can be verified or not. Thanks.