Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:Dang bro! Didn't know you was gonna come at me that way! Look I ain't trying to challenge or offend, someone asked my opinion of the shroud and I told them. To me it's really a non-issue. Judging from your reaction this is obviously a very important subject to you, it's something you believe in and I ain't trying to take that away from you. I am not trying to deconvert you or anyone else here; I was just answering a question that was asked of me; Okay? Are we cool now?

Peace
Ken

Ken, it is probably a good thing to have an informed opinion, don't you think?
You opinion on the shroud is not informed at all.
Going by what one hears about the shroud from skeptics is like formulating an opinion about evolution by what you hear on creationist websites.

There is a very big reason what the RCC has not come out and fully endorsed the Shroud and it has nothing to do with whether they believe it is authentic or not, it is because they tend to NOT endorse ANY object that may lead to "idol worshiping".
Regardless of what some critics say about the RCC, it is very stringent on these ( miracle) matters, especially in the last 40 years.

Storyteller wrote:Ken,

Have you actually read any of Bips thread on the shroud?

I find it curious that there have been so many scientists that were atheists before studying the shroud yet became Christians after researching it. Does that count for nothing?
The shroud has been studied, really hard, yet no one can disprove (or prove, to be fair) it`s authenticity. That speaks volumes to me.
The circumstantial evidence that it was indeed the shroud of Christ is pretty compelling. How, as an atheist then, do you explain the image on the shroud? We can`t, with all our knowledge and scientific processes, recreate that image today.
The blood clots, the pollen, all of the little details strongly suggest it is the real deal.

(edited to add, just read that through and realise it may come across as aggressive, it isn`t meant like that at all. x)

His last post was his typical exit strategy.

Kenny wrote:
Dang bro! Didn't know you was gonna come at me that way! Look I ain't trying to challenge or offend, someone asked my opinion of the shroud and I told them. To me it's really a non-issue. Judging from your reaction this is obviously a very important subject to you, it's something you believe in and I ain't trying to take that away from you. I am not trying to deconvert you or anyone else here; I was just answering a question that was asked of me; Okay? Are we cool now?

Peace
Ken

check out the boldened here ken...

it feels more like most of what you do is challenge and offend... I don't think you've read my posts except for the sake of the challenge
you really don't have a clue what's important to me... but you could if you'd actually read what I post
you really don't have a clue as to what I believe in... but you could if you'd actually read what I post
you in no way have the power to take anything away from me... I mean nothing ...
you couldn't deconvert (sp?) me or anyone else on site...

cool,in a Christian sense, is beyond your grasp ... as is peace, but my prayer for you would be peace and the calming influence it may have over you, now that would be cool.

Believe it or not, your in my prayers. I've asked for your deliverance and all those like you, afraid to trust and unwilling to yield your life over to the God of life. You don't get this, I know, but prayers are for exactly that, the worst case scenario made good. Ask B.W., be unafraid and see what awaits... and remember,
eternity begins right after you think you've had enough.

nuff said ...?

Storyteller wrote:Ken,

Have you actually read any of Bips thread on the shroud?

No.

Storyteller wrote: I find it curious that there have been so many scientists that were atheists before studying the shroud yet became Christians after researching it. Does that count for nothing?
The shroud has been studied, really hard, yet no one can disprove (or prove, to be fair) it`s authenticity. That speaks volumes to me.

According to Essential Sacrifice; after 2000 hrs of scientific research, they concluded it was a forgery.

Storyteller wrote: The circumstantial evidence that it was indeed the shroud of Christ is pretty compelling. How, as an atheist then, do you explain the image on the shroud? We can`t, with all our knowledge and scientific processes, recreate that image today.
The blood clots, the pollen, all of the little details strongly suggest it is the real deal.

I don’t know much about the shroud, but when a group of scientists study it and conclude it a forgery, and the Catholic Church refuses to authenticate it, that is good enough for me.

Storyteller wrote: (edited to add, just read that through and realise it may come across as aggressive, it isn`t meant like that at all. x)

You don’t come across as aggressive; I invite your questions

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:Dang bro! Didn't know you was gonna come at me that way! Look I ain't trying to challenge or offend, someone asked my opinion of the shroud and I told them. To me it's really a non-issue. Judging from your reaction this is obviously a very important subject to you, it's something you believe in and I ain't trying to take that away from you. I am not trying to deconvert you or anyone else here; I was just answering a question that was asked of me; Okay? Are we cool now?

Peace
Ken

Ken, it is probably a good thing to have an informed opinion, don't you think?
You opinion on the shroud is not informed at all.
Going by what one hears about the shroud from skeptics is like formulating an opinion about evolution by what you hear on creationist websites.
.

When the Catholics Church allows a group of scientists to spend 2000 hrs researching it, that sounds legitimate to me. I don't have a "dog in this fight" but the Catholic Church does I assume. If those scientists were bias against the shroud, I suspect they would have found someone else to do the research

Ken

ken qrote:
According to Essential Sacrifice; after 2000 hrs of scientific research, they concluded it was a forgery.

you'll need to find this...and post it here... unless i made some grievious typing error, this was never said by me...

When the Catholics Church allows a group of scientists to spend 2000 hrs researching it, that sounds legitimate to me. I don't have a "dog in this fight" but the Catholic Church does I assume . If those scientists were bias against the shroud, I suspect they would have found someone else to do the research

see boldened, you know what they say... just hate being a part of it... you really don't read other posts with any clarity ...

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Ken,

Have you actually read any of Bips thread on the shroud?

No.

Storyteller wrote: I find it curious that there have been so many scientists that were atheists before studying the shroud yet became Christians after researching it. Does that count for nothing?
The shroud has been studied, really hard, yet no one can disprove (or prove, to be fair) it`s authenticity. That speaks volumes to me.

According to Essential Sacrifice; after 2000 hrs of scientific research, they concluded it was a forgery.

Storyteller wrote: The circumstantial evidence that it was indeed the shroud of Christ is pretty compelling. How, as an atheist then, do you explain the image on the shroud? We can`t, with all our knowledge and scientific processes, recreate that image today.
The blood clots, the pollen, all of the little details strongly suggest it is the real deal.

I don’t know much about the shroud, but when a group of scientists study it and conclude it a forgery, and the Catholic Church refuses to authenticate it, that is good enough for me.

Storyteller wrote: (edited to add, just read that through and realise it may come across as aggressive, it isn`t meant like that at all. x)

You don’t come across as aggressive; I invite your questions

Ken

Its a long thread ken, but I promise you, well worth the read. in fact I dare you to read it, it may just change your mind!
As for sentists finding it a fraud, thats covered in the thread (will see if I can find the relevant posts)
bips puts forward many good arguments and backs them up.
how much do you really know about the shroud?
are you willing to read bips thread, and with an open mind?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:Dang bro! Didn't know you was gonna come at me that way! Look I ain't trying to challenge or offend, someone asked my opinion of the shroud and I told them. To me it's really a non-issue. Judging from your reaction this is obviously a very important subject to you, it's something you believe in and I ain't trying to take that away from you. I am not trying to deconvert you or anyone else here; I was just answering a question that was asked of me; Okay? Are we cool now?

Peace
Ken

Ken, it is probably a good thing to have an informed opinion, don't you think?
You opinion on the shroud is not informed at all.
Going by what one hears about the shroud from skeptics is like formulating an opinion about evolution by what you hear on creationist websites.
.

When the Catholics Church allows a group of scientists to spend 2000 hrs researching it, that sounds legitimate to me. I don't have a "dog in this fight" but the Catholic Church does I assume. If those scientists were bias against the shroud, I suspect they would have found someone else to do the research

Ken

The RC couldn't really have cared that much because the legitimacy of the shroud is irrelevant to the RC and any church doctrine.

Now, from what I gather ( and this is going simply on what I have been told by a friend in the Vatican science department ) the RCC did do testing on the shroud before they handed it over and THEIR testing showed that the Shroud was dated to around 100 BC-300 AD. When the news came out that the shroud had been dated to 13th century the "internal view" was that this was an attempt to discredit the faith and that something should be done.
The official position was that since the Faith is NOT based on anything BUT the RESURRECTED Christ, then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks and no artifact can effect it, besided even if the dating could be proved beyond a reason of a doubt, it doesn't mean it was Christ.
The unofficial view was that short of damaging the shroud and going over this again and again, there was no point because skeptics would always say it was fake, believers would always believe it to be real, regardless.

Of course, over the years more and more evidence has shown that the dating of the 13th century is wrong.

BUT, more importantly, there is one simple FACT that no skeptic has been ever able to address:

NO ONE, EVER , has been able to reproduce the image on the shroud with the same qualities that the shroud has, not even now with 21st century tech.
NO ONE.

The closest anyone has gotten to something similar to the image was when radiation was used.

I don’t know much about the shroud, but when a group of scientists study it and conclude it a forgery, and the Catholic Church refuses to authenticate it, that is good enough for me.

The RCC does NOT authenticate relics, so.
What about the other group of scientists that say it isn't?

You do know that there are some scientists that do not believe the theory of evolution is correct, right? does that mean it isn't?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/ov ... 01981.html

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

ken qrote:
According to Essential Sacrifice; after 2000 hrs of scientific research, they concluded it was a forgery.

you'll need to find this...and post it here... unless i made some grevious typing error, this was never said by me...

I've re-read what you wrote a couple posts back and I misunderstood the point you were making; my mistake. You were claiming they took a chance of it being called a forgery, not that they actually labeled it a forgery. I recant what I said about the scientists concluding it a forgery.

Ken

ken, the crazy thing about the Shroud is that the evidence does not point away, yet, to it's being a forgery ( a forgery being anything other than the actual burial and resurrecton cloth of Christ.) You really should take a look at bippy's thread on the Shroud... it'll blow you away or at the very least put some serious questions in your mind.

So far anyway, there really is no viable scientific explanation for the image to exist at all, let alone a 1st century or 13 century forgery... it's crazy, try this on for size //theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/, ps; thanks bippy for this link

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Ken,

Have you actually read any of Bips thread on the shroud?

No.

Storyteller wrote: I find it curious that there have been so many scientists that were atheists before studying the shroud yet became Christians after researching it. Does that count for nothing?
The shroud has been studied, really hard, yet no one can disprove (or prove, to be fair) it`s authenticity. That speaks volumes to me.

According to Essential Sacrifice; after 2000 hrs of scientific research, they concluded it was a forgery.

Storyteller wrote: The circumstantial evidence that it was indeed the shroud of Christ is pretty compelling. How, as an atheist then, do you explain the image on the shroud? We can`t, with all our knowledge and scientific processes, recreate that image today.
The blood clots, the pollen, all of the little details strongly suggest it is the real deal.

I don’t know much about the shroud, but when a group of scientists study it and conclude it a forgery, and the Catholic Church refuses to authenticate it, that is good enough for me.

Storyteller wrote: (edited to add, just read that through and realise it may come across as aggressive, it isn`t meant like that at all. x)

You don’t come across as aggressive; I invite your questions

Ken

Its a long thread ken, but I promise you, well worth the read. in fact I dare you to read it, it may just change your mind!
As for sentists finding it a fraud, thats covered in the thread (will see if I can find the relevant posts)
bips puts forward many good arguments and backs them up.
how much do you really know about the shroud?
are you willing to read bips thread, and with an open mind?

I don't know anything about carbon dating, or whatever systems scientists use to determine the age of something. This would be like a person claiming Calculus is a flawed mathematical system and providing me with a mathematical equation that proves his point! Weather he is right or wrong, I have no way of knowing because I don't understand calculus! In order for me to be convinced of something, you have to speak to me in a language I understand. Carbon dating is a language I don't understand.

I will look over the thread to see if I understand any of it. Is there any particular page, or date I should look at? There's gotta be a hundred pages to that thread; you aren't asking me to go over all of them are you?

K

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:Dang bro! Didn't know you was gonna come at me that way! Look I ain't trying to challenge or offend, someone asked my opinion of the shroud and I told them. To me it's really a non-issue. Judging from your reaction this is obviously a very important subject to you, it's something you believe in and I ain't trying to take that away from you. I am not trying to deconvert you or anyone else here; I was just answering a question that was asked of me; Okay? Are we cool now?

Peace
Ken

Ken, it is probably a good thing to have an informed opinion, don't you think?
You opinion on the shroud is not informed at all.
Going by what one hears about the shroud from skeptics is like formulating an opinion about evolution by what you hear on creationist websites.
.

When the Catholics Church allows a group of scientists to spend 2000 hrs researching it, that sounds legitimate to me. I don't have a "dog in this fight" but the Catholic Church does I assume. If those scientists were bias against the shroud, I suspect they would have found someone else to do the research

Ken

The RC couldn't really have cared that much because the legitimacy of the shroud is irrelevant to the RC and any church doctrine.

Now, from what I gather ( and this is going simply on what I have been told by a friend in the Vatican science department ) the RCC did do testing on the shroud before they handed it over and THEIR testing showed that the Shroud was dated to around 100 BC-300 AD. When the news came out that the shroud had been dated to 13th century the "internal view" was that this was an attempt to discredit the faith and that something should be done.
The official position was that since the Faith is NOT based on anything BUT the RESURRECTED Christ, then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks and no artifact can effect it, besided even if the dating could be proved beyond a reason of a doubt, it doesn't mean it was Christ.
The unofficial view was that short of damaging the shroud and going over this again and again, there was no point because skeptics would always say it was fake, believers would always believe it to be real, regardless.

Of course, over the years more and more evidence has shown that the dating of the 13th century is wrong.

BUT, more importantly, there is one simple FACT that no skeptic has been ever able to address:

NO ONE, EVER , has been able to reproduce the image on the shroud with the same qualities that the shroud has, not even now with 21st century tech.
NO ONE.

The closest anyone has gotten to something similar to the image was when radiation was used.

A quick google search turned this up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/ ... HL20091005
Of course he was funded by an Atheist organization.

Ken

ken

http://shroud2000.com/Introduction.html here and then here http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/ good places to pique your interest...

Kenny and this is why Luigi's replication doesn't even come close to replicating the unique features that the shroud of turin possesses . In 117 years after it was discovered that the shroud image had photo negative qualities no one had been able to replicate the shroud image in all of its unique qualities .

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... in_10.html

Third, there are no true "duplicates" of the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud's image is that of a full-sized man, front and back, head to head, filling most of the cloth's ~4.4 metres length; it is extremely faint and cannot be seen up close; it is a type of photographic negative; it is extremely superficial, being only 0.0002 mm thick; it has three-dimensional information encoded in it; the cloth has no artist's outline, it has no directionality; there is no paint, pigment or dye on it which forms its image; the bloodstains are real blood, and there is no image under the bloodstains, i.e. the blood was on the cloth before the image.

And all attempts to produce a duplicate of the Shroud with all these major features have failed. The latest such failed duplication, that of Luigi Garlaschelli, who only produced a face, not a full length image on.

""[

Above: `Duplicate' of the `Shroud' by Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli: Sindonology.org, October 11, 2009. "More information about the tentative reproduction of the Shroud of Turin, made by an Italian researcher, came out in the last few days. Luigi Garlaschelli made public a few digital images of the result of his reproduction on the Web. The result is clearly not like the Shroud. Here are the major differences of this reproduction compared to the Shroud of Turin: *The anatomical details of the face and body do not have the precision of the Shroud. *The 3D effect does not have the precision found on the Shroud. On the tentative reproduction there are many locations where no image appears whereas one is perceivable on the Shroud of Turin. This is due to the technique used: an image made by contact. *The color of images of the reproduction has a red hue (images after washing red ocre) whereas on the Shroud of Turin it has a yellow-straw hue. *No microphotographies of the reproduction are provided. They should show that the images are superficial like the Shroud of Turin. Based on the technique used to create these images, we can infer that the images are not superficial. *In summary, the tentative reproduction of Luigi Garlaschelli is very far from being a reproduction of the Shroud of Turin."]""""""

a ~4.4 x 1.1 metre sheet of linen. And as one commentator pointed out, "... the modern [Garlaschelli's] copy is garish, lacking any gradations of tone" and is "completely inferior":

"""

"As recently as October 2009 came yet another claim to have `reproduced' how the Shroud was faked. Luigi Garlaschelli ... Professor of Organic Chemistry at the University of Pavia in Italy, has made something of a speciality of debunking claims of religious paranormal phenomena. ... In the case of the Shroud, Garlaschelli's method was to place a linen sheet flat over a volunteer model, then rub this with a pigment containing acid. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven, then the cloth was washed. This process removed the pigment from the surface but left an image reputedly similar to that of the Shroud. Garlaschelli's claim, presented at a conference in northern Italy for atheists and agnostics, prompted a flurry of news headlines around the world. Yet even the most cursory comparison between his 'negative' ... and that on the Shroud reveals the former as hardly the 'definitive proof' of the Shroud's fraudulence that he has claimed for it. As remarked by one 'general public' commentator on the Reuters news story, `Why isn't anyone saying the obvious? Compare these two images ... the modern copy is garish, lacking any gradations of tone ... it's completely inferior, especially when one contrasts the faces and the chest areas.'"." (Wilson, 2010, p.29).

""""

Moreover, Garlaschelli's `Shroud duplicate' is disqualified, because he applied the `blood' after he made the image, whereas on the Shroud of Turin, the blood was on the cloth before the image (which would be the case if the image was caused by Jesus' resurrection):

""""

Actually, the technique describes by Garlaschelli to reproduce the Shroud demonstrates that he did not reproduce it. For example, he added blood stains after he created the image. On the real Shroud of Turin, there is no image underneath the bloodstains. A basic fact known since 1978." Sindonology.org, October 9, 2009).
See also Thibault Heimburger, "Comments about the Recent Experiment of Professor Luigi Garlaschelli," November 2009

.""""