Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:Nobody has reproduced the erection of easter island statues and
figured out pyramids. Quite simply, or otherwise.

And therefore?

How is it received wisdom that the "simplest" way is as you said?

Science works by falsifying hypothesses. But then, I dont think they will let anyone really
test the "Shroud".

Not sure what your point is...

No one doubts the authenticity of the Easter island heads and there are many theories as to how the pyramids were built and it has been shown how they could have been built with the tools of the time.

No one has demonstrated that with the shroud.

There have been other tests done on the shroud, if you had read the thread you would have known that.

And we all know how science works, that is the point.
Science has not be able to conclude HOW the image got there and no one has been able to replicate the conditions and the closest anyone came was via the use of radiation.

The Easter island statues had an erection ??
Was this recently or is this something I missed ????

Audie wrote:Nobody has reproduced the erection of easter island statues and
figured out pyramids. Quite simply, or otherwise.

And therefore?

How is it received wisdom that the "simplest" way is as you said?

Science works by falsifying hypothesses. But then, I dont think they will let anyone really
test the "Shroud".

Last I heard was that photography was invented in the late 1800's
The shroud is a photographic negative .that would mean that photography had to have been invented 500 years before it was known .

Not the same as replicating statues on Easter island .
Faulty logic .

The shroud makes a lot of people excited and lots of people scared .
Can you guess which worldview us most scared by it

Cough errrratheistsburp

Here are the protocols violated by the 1978 c14 labs

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marinelliv.pdf

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone will declare: “The analysis of carbon-14 seems to have been a mistake, particularly because of prejudices, of which it is useless to speak, because the verdict was decided even before performing the analyses”143.
In the statement of the scientific committee of the International Symposium, held in Paris in 1989, it is written that there are strong reserves on the statistical analysis of the results, especially on the value of chi-squared (χ2) 6.4 for samples of Shroud, which have provided not homogeneous radiocarbon dates. Therefore, the Scientific Committee requested the release of all raw data obtained by the three laboratories and of the commentary written by professor Bray of the “Colonnetti”144. During the International Symposium, held in Rome in 1993, statistician Philippe Bourcier de Carbon listed fifteen points of failure in the radiocarbon history of the Shroud145:
1. absence of a formal report of the sampling;
2. absence of a video archive on the final steps of the samples packaging;
3. in the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and the weight of the samples by
people in charge of sampling;
4. breaches of the protocols initially planned for the operation of dating;
5. rejection of the usual procedure of double-blind test;
6. refusal of the interdisciplinary documentation, which is usual in the procedures for
radiocarbon dating;
7. exclusion of acknowledged specialists in the Shroud, particularly American scientists who
participated in previous works of STURP;
8. communication to the laboratories, most unusual, of the dates of the control samples prior
to testing;
9. intercommunication of results among the three laboratories during the job;
10. disclosure to the media of the first results before the delivering of the findings;
11. refusal to publish raw results of the measurements (requested also with insistence in its
official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in
1989);
12. non-explanation of the unique isolation of the confidence interval of the measures
performed by the Oxford laboratory compared to those made by other laboratories;
13. unacceptable value of 6.4 published in the journal Nature for the chi-squared statistical
test on the results of the radiocarbon dosage on the Shroud;
14. rejection of any cross-debate on the statistical measures performed;
15. rejection, absolutely uncommon, of the publication of the statistical expertise of this
operation, officially entrusted to professor Bray of “G. Colonnetti” Institute of Turin (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989).
Bourcier de Carbon concludes: “Such a remark of deficiencies remains completely unusual in the context of a truly scientific debate, and one can only deplore this exception to the usual ethics”146.

PaulSacramento wrote: Multiple labs reaching the same conclusion from the same sample means just that.

Huh? Corroborating dating results increases confidence in the 14th century origin of that particular cloth sample. Surely, you agree?

If the labs all dated the different pieces of that cloth sample at 2000 years, would you be similarly dismissive of those results?

PaulSacramento wrote: [... blather about cloth repair and fire contamination ...]

Raymond Rogers and Dmitri Kouznetsov raised these issues, questioning the relevance of the testing labs' dating results. Questioning is healthy, but numerous scientists have addressed, with near consensus, Rogers' and Kouznetsov's issues.

Almost all the remaining holdouts for a non-14th century date for the cloth, understandably have an obvious and biasing pre-existing belief. Those holdouts might still be correct, but that's not the way to bet.

Morny: Almost all the remaining holdouts for a non-14th century date for the cloth, understandably have an obvious and biasing pre-existing belief. Those holdouts might still be correct, but that's not the way to bet.

Well, let's see, we have a pre-scientific age artifact that is not painted on, that no one knows of ANY method of transferal that could then, much less can NOW produce it - despite rigorous testing - as to how the image could have been transferred, excepting some kind of incredible burst of power. If this image was meant to deceive, one would expect it to appear to be a man's face/body - what a clever artist might be able to produce. But no paint, dye - none of that. PLUS, the image is a NEGATIVE. Pre-photography - WHY???!!! And no one even realized the Shroud image to be a negative until it was photographed centuries later. Oh, and supposed ancient faked artifact has THREE DIMENSIONAL SPACIAL IMAGE DATA - on BOTH sides. What forger would be able to produce such a thing - we can't today. So, as for people of the era this would have been created in - they didn't have the ability to produce the image, much less have an understanding of negative, spatial imagery, etc. - these in an era when religious relics - like pieces of the cross, golden chalices - were a dime a dozen. And the really extraordinary aspects of the Shroud were not even known until the modern era. And no one can explain it - despite so many scholars and professionals having scrutinized it more than any known artifact known to man. And so, this unbelievable, anatomically perfect shroud 1) just happens to be technically inexplicable; 2) It just HAPPENS to be a burial shroud, believed CENTURIES before it's astonishing technical attributes were discovered, to be the burial garment of Christ; 3) It just happens to be the only such artifact EVER discovered with such attributes; 4) It just happens to have pollens specific to Israel on it; 5) It just happens to PERFECTLY match up with the Scriptural descriptions of Jesus' pre and post-Crucifixion wounds and scars; 6) The textile perfectly matches up with know shroud materials and weave of the first century. NO forger could have even known about microscopic pollens, nor which ones would have been on it, even if they had known what they were.

Add the above all up - what are the odds? WHO could create something so incredible, and in a pre-scientific era that 1) can't be duplicated today; 2) That no transmission ability yet exists to replicate it; 3) That has details that no ancient forger would even understand the attributes of, much less have had the technology or ability to produce; 4) All this when an ancient, pre-scientific age's audience required to fool would have been easily duped by a simple painted image, or bloodstains on a shroud - all needed be would have been for the church to have claimed it to be of Christ. NONE of this is possible and NONE of it makes any sense - UNLESS... One thing is certain: People whom dismiss this as a simple forgery are FAR beyond ignorant of the scholarship and exhaustive technical scrutiny so many experts have put this artifact through. And the more they know about it, the more flabbergasted they have been. And most who THINK they know about the Shroud, have only read the same bogus media reports that have been redundantly regurgitated.

Philip wrote:[... tome ignoring my point about the cloth's radiometric dating ...]

As I asked in my last response to PaulSacramento, can we first find common ground on something simple?

Is the cloth's radiometric dating evidence for a 14th century origin?

Huh? Corroborating dating results increases confidence in the 14th century origin of that particular cloth sample. Surely, you agree?

If the labs all dated the different pieces of that cloth sample at 2000 years, would you be similarly dismissive of those results?"""

First of all collaborating between labs is a violation of protocol for many reasons , one is they would allow all deliberate manipulation of tests . There is a reason why it's standard protocols never to allow different labs to know what the other labs are doing . It's called good science morny, but I'm sure that if they all got a date of 2000 years you would be s teaming bloody murder and you would cite standard scientists doc protocol for c14 testing . I guess when the evidence leans against atheism you can come up with excuses galore to back your religious beliefs right morny ?
Kettle please tell that pot that he's black as well

""Raymond Rogers and Dmitri Kouznetsov raised these issues, questioning the relevance of the testing labs' dating results. Questioning is healthy, but numerous scientists have addressed, with near consensus, Rogers' and Kouznetsov's issues.""

Wow talk about desperation . Rogers did more then raise these issues . He had samples from all areas of the shroud, even from the area the c14 tests were taken .he proved scientists found that the c14 tests were not done on the origin back shroud .

If you had done any research at all you would know that even Timothy jull who was in charge of one of the labs said that if he knew the chi squared number was 6.4 he might have called for another test .
Any chi no above5.99 makes the dates unreliable .
In fact when the chi was tabulated using computers instead of by hand the number was 8.6 which is much worse .

Ray Rogers peer reviewed micro chemical analysis was collaborated by a team of 8 scientists at los slam is and by john l brown microscopist formerly of Georgie tech .

Morny do you really wanna go down this path ?
You won't be able to do your atheist wiggle on these facts

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote:[... tome ignoring my point about the cloth's radiometric dating ...]

As I asked in my last response to PaulSacramento, can we first find common ground on something simple?

Is the cloth's radiometric dating evidence for a 14th century origin?

Absolutely not because all the scientific evidence points against it , plus it has been proven that what was tested wasn't part of the original shroud

You have yet to counter one piece of evidence against it

Philip wrote:

Morny: Almost all the remaining holdouts for a non-14th century date for the cloth, understandably have an obvious and biasing pre-existing belief. Those holdouts might still be correct, but that's not the way to bet.

Well, let's see, we have a pre-scientific age artifact that is not painted on, that no one knows of ANY method of transferal that could then, much less can NOW produce it - despite rigorous testing - as to how the image could have been transferred, excepting some kind of incredible burst of power. If this image was meant to deceive, one would expect it to appear to be a man's face/body - what a clever artist might be able to produce. But no paint, dye - none of that. PLUS, the image is a NEGATIVE. Pre-photography - WHY???!!! And no one even realized the Shroud image to be a negative until it was photographed centuries later. Oh, and supposed ancient faked artifact has THREE DIMENSIONAL SPACIAL IMAGE DATA - on BOTH sides. What forger would be able to produce such a thing - we can't today. So, as for people of the era this would have been created in - they didn't have the ability to produce the image, much less have an understanding of negative, spatial imagery, etc. - these in an era when religious relics - like pieces of the cross, golden chalices - were a dime a dozen. And the really extraordinary aspects of the Shroud were not even known until the modern era. And no one can explain it - despite so many scholars and professionals having scrutinized it more than any known artifact known to man. And so, this unbelievable, anatomically perfect shroud 1) just happens to be technically inexplicable; 2) It just HAPPENS to be a burial shroud, believed CENTURIES before it's astonishing technical attributes were discovered, to be the burial garment of Christ; 3) It just happens to be the only such artifact EVER discovered with such attributes; 4) It just happens to have pollens specific to Israel on it; 5) It just happens to PERFECTLY match up with the Scriptural descriptions of Jesus' pre and post-Crucifixion wounds and scars; 6) The textile perfectly matches up with know shroud materials and weave of the first century. NO forger could have even known about microscopic pollens, nor which ones would have been on it, even if they had known what they were.

Add the above all up - what are the odds? WHO could create something so incredible, and in a pre-scientific era that 1) can't be duplicated today; 2) That no transmission ability yet exists to replicate it; 3) That has details that no ancient forger would even understand the attributes of, much less have had the technology or ability to produce; 4) All this when an ancient, pre-scientific age's audience required to fool would have been easily duped by a simple painted image, or bloodstains on a shroud - all needed be would have been for the church to have claimed it to be of Christ. NONE of this is possible and NONE of it makes any sense - UNLESS... One thing is certain: People whom dismiss this as a simple forgery are FAR beyond ignorant of the scholarship and exhaustive technical scrutiny so many experts have put this artifact through. And the more they know about it, the more flabbergasted they have been. And most who THINK they know about the Shroud, have only read the same bogus media reports that have been redundantly regurgitated.

Wow Philip , I'm at a loss for words . Wished I had your talent for explaining the evidences .
Tears of joy here my friend
Awesome post

Hey morny, here is your fellow shroud skeptic Timothy jull the chemist who was in charge of the Arizona lab. I bet next you will want him to come to this forum to verify he said this :

""252. Also Van Haelst did not have adequate answers to his questions253. Jull admitted: “This is a bad level. Normally, with such a result, I make the measures again”254.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marinelliv.pdf

Oops did Timothy jull just say that this is a bad level ?
Oops morny , time for damage control , plus if jull had known the computer number was 8.6 he would have flipped

But of course morny will not admit that the c14 test was botched big time

Any number above 5.99 is unreliable

The simple issue here is that even IF the C14 test were ok ( they weren't), the fact that they were done on a part of the shroud that was known to be a replacement/repair simply means that, THAT part was from the 14th century.

Now, add to that that OTHER, MULTIPLE lines of evidence and what we have is, at best:
A) 1- line of evidence that shows one part of the shroud, a part known to have been a repair part, to be dated 14th century.
B) MULTIPLE lines that show the shroud is MUCH older.
C) Scientific evidence that shows the ONLY method that has\e been able to CLOE CLOSE to reproducing the image used radiation.

Seems to me that Morny is focusing on what he wants to see and disregarding the rest.
Not sure why though...

PaulSacramento wrote:Seems to me that Morny is focusing on what he wants to see and disregarding the rest.
Not sure why though...

Yes, a genuine mystery.

PaulSacramento wrote: The simple issue here is that even IF the C14 test were ok ( they weren't), the fact that they were done on a part of the shroud that was known to be a replacement/repair simply means that, THAT part was from the 14th century.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the C14 tests not being OK.

Do you agree, in general, that C14 dating is reliable, if done according to scientifically accepted protocols?

If so, do you agree that the C14 dating tests were reliable for the sampled section, regardless of whether that section was a 14th century repair patch or not? For example, based on everything that you think you know, if the C14 tests had given an 10th century date, would you be more confident of a 10th or a 14th century origin for that "repair" patch?

PaulSacramento wrote: Seems to me that Morny is focusing on what he wants to see and disregarding the rest.
Not sure why though...

You should know - I've said here that finding common ground first is important. So far we haven't. And if we cannot find common ground on the simplest of statements about radiometric dating, then debate is futile.

Paraphrasing Sheldon Cooper, I'm not stupid - my mother had me tested.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: The simple issue here is that even IF the C14 test were ok ( they weren't), the fact that they were done on a part of the shroud that was known to be a replacement/repair simply means that, THAT part was from the 14th century.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the C14 tests not being OK.

Do you agree, in general, that C14 dating is reliable, if done according to scientifically accepted protocols?

If so, do you agree that the C14 dating tests were reliable for the sampled section, regardless of whether that section was a 14th century repair patch or not? For example, based on everything that you think you know, if the C14 tests had given an 10th century date, would you be more confident of a 10th or a 14th century origin for that "repair" patch?

PaulSacramento wrote: Seems to me that Morny is focusing on what he wants to see and disregarding the rest.
Not sure why though...

You should know - I've said here that finding common ground first is important. So far we haven't. And if we cannot find common ground on the simplest of statements about radiometric dating, then debate is futile.

Paraphrasing Sheldon Cooper, I'm not stupid - my mother had me tested.

No, I don't agree since, as it has been pointed out, numerous protocols were violated.
BUT, even if the test were ok, it was only ONE line of evidence and on a non-original piece.

If some group came to you or published that they tested the frame of the Mona Lisa, a frame that was redone in the 1800's and concludes that because the frame was carbon dated to the 1800's that the Mona Lisa is a fake, would you believe them?

Carbon 14 tests - or ANY kind of test - done on a well-known, centuries-later repair portion, is ultimately irrelevant. Why the pointless question trying to establish whether someone sees carbon 14 testing as a valid measure - that's a pure rabbit trail that is entirely meaningless! To even bring this point forward as a supposed refuting of the Shroud's authenticity shows that someone has only read widely and redundantly regurgitated and false claims that "the Shroud is a medieval, fraudulent creation.

Next issue or question, please!