Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:Intake it Hugh that you've given up refuting that the French reweave couldn't be detected by the naked eye from either side of the cloth ? Dirs that mean you concede that it can't be detected by the naked eye just as without a trace said ?

Certainly not! Last week I sent a sample of cloth with a small hole in it to Michael Ehrlich of Without A Trace, to find out how invisible he can make a mend. When it returns, I'll be able to confirm. Won't that be exciting!

hughfarey wrote:

DBowling wrote:My speculation/guess would that the image was caused by some sort of energy release that occurred as a result of the resurrection. I cannot speak to the nature, scope, or direction of any hypothetical energy release, because again resurrection is not a process that we can replicate.

If that means that the process was intrinsically non-replicable by virtue of its supernatural nature, then no sort of energy release is necessary.

Very true...
My speculation is not based on an assumption that energy release is a required byproduct of Resurrection.

My speculation is based on the following.
- The image is not a function of human fabrication
- The image is not a function of known 'natural' causes.
- The Shroud was exposed to a miraculous supernatural event when the body of Jesus was Resurrected, therefore for me it follows that a miraculous supernatural event associated with the Shroud is the cause of an unexplainable image.
- The image was not the result of the transfer of physical substances from the body to the cloth.
- If the image was not formed by the transfer of physical substances then another reasonable candidate for the cause of the image is some sort of energy transfer.

I think you are misrepresenting what Ray Rogers is saying in both 2002 and 2004. In both papers Ray supports the assertion that the blood was deposited on the cloth before the image was formed. And in both papers Ray proposes his Maillard reaction theory. In neither paper does Ray repudiate Alan Adler's premise that the blood was deposited before the image. There is nothing in either paper to indicate that Ray thought his Mallard reaction theory was inconsistent with Adler's observation that the blood was deposited on the cloth before the image was formed.

That's quite true (and I hadn't realised how much of his 2004 paper was included in his 2002 one), but he does not appear to realise that his impurity layer hypothesis is incompatible with the corroded cellulose hypothesis. The passage below is a masterpiece of confusion:

I'm sure it made sense to Rogers
From my understanding it is technospeak for the following two observations
1. "The image color resides only on the surface of the fibers"
2. The surface color "had the same chemical composition as expected from dehydrated carbohydrates."

Here is an observation about the blood cloth from Ray's 2004 paper
"Image colour does not appear under the bloodstains when they are removed with a proteolytic enzyme. Whatever
process produced the image, colour must have occurred after the blood flowed onto (or was painted onto) the cloth, and the image-producing process did not destroy the blood"

The fact that image color does not appear under the bloodstains is not a hypothesis, it is an observation regarding the relationship of the blood on the Shroud and the image on the Shroud.

If Ray's hypothesis about how the image was formed on the cloth is inconsistent with the observed characteristics of the image on the cloth then that would speak to the accuracy of the hypothesis regarding how the image was formed.
(BTW... I'm not convinced they are inconsistent. And in both his 2002 and 2004 papers Ray didn't think they were inconsistent either.)
Ray's hypothesis about how the image was formed has no impact on the accuracy of the observation that there is no image underneath the blood.

I believe there is a significant difference between the three other resurrections you mention and the resurrection of Jesus. I do believe all four of the resurrections involved bringing a dead physical body back to life. In three of the cases you mention, a dead mortal body was brought back to life, but it was still a mortal body after the body was resurrected. There was no fundamental change in the nature of the body after resurrection. However in the case of Jesus, there was a change in the fundamental nature of the physical body. The body that died was a 'perishable' mortal body. But Jesus' resurrection changed his physical body into a "non-perishable' immortal body that was fundamentally different from the body that died.

There is a change of emphasis here from your "Every time a person is resurrected from the dead in Scripture, it is clearly and unambiguously presented as a miraculous act that demonstrates the supernatural power of God," but I take your point, although Luke 24:39-43 seems at pains to point out that the resurrected Christ was not so different from the previous one.

However, just a few verses earlier in Luke 24 there is an indication that there was something different about the resurrected Jesus.
Luke 24:30-31
"30 When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight."

Not understanding how the image itself was formed does nothing to invalidate other things that we can determine about the Shroud through scientific processes. Your logic just doesn't follow.

The apparent age of the shroud, the chemical constituents of the blood, the details of the trauma - if the Shroud was miraculous Jesus could have caused all these to happen without actually being in the tomb at all. We can measure what's there, sure, but we cannot trace any of it back to a natural or supernatural 'cause'.

That's a straw man.
I'm not claiming that every aspect of the cloth is 'miraculous'.
There is only one aspect of the Shroud that cannot be explained by natural causes, and that is how the image itself was formed.
If the image on the cloth is Jesus then we know from Scripture that the Shroud was exposed to a miraculous supernatural event... the Resurrection of Jesus.
It is very logical then to assume that the miraculous supernatural event that the Shroud was exposed to somehow caused the unexplainable image.

The image on the Shroud is either a discolouration of the surface cells of the fibres - also resulting in their 'corroded' appearance - or it is a discolouration of a superficial additional layer, possibly resulting in a 'crackled' appearance. Rogers opted for the latter, and made numerous claims for it which directly contradicted the findings of Heller and Adler. He claimed that their 'corroded' surface was in fact his 'crackled' layer, denying their absolute denial of any additions of any kind. He claimed that his layer was made of starch, directly contradicting their negative findings of any starch on the Shroud. All three scientists were giants in their respective fields, with strong personalities. It is such a pity that they were not able to rationalise their differences themselves.

Now, let's try this:

Amazing! From the top, mine, the Shroud and Garlaschelli's. As you can see, all of them appear curiously more realistic in negative than they do in real life, and all of them demonstrate a 3-D quality in appropriate manipulation software. One can no doubt quibble about how 'good' my and Garlaschelli's images are, but the achievement of what is frequently claimed as non-achievable cannot be denied.

hughfarey wrote:The image on the Shroud is either a discolouration of the surface cells of the fibres - also resulting in their 'corroded' appearance - or it is a discolouration of a superficial additional layer, possibly resulting in a 'crackled' appearance. Rogers opted for the latter, and made numerous claims for it which directly contradicted the findings of Heller and Adler.

Again... you are making assertions on behalf of Ray Rogers that he himself never makes.

Your argument is directly refuted by the following statement that Rogers makes in both his 2002 and 2004 papers.
"Image color does not appear under the blood stains when they are removed with a proteolytic enzyme. Whatever process produced the image color must have occurred after the blood flowed onto the cloth, and the image-producing process did not destroy the blood."

Ray Rogers never recants or refutes this statement that he made multiple times.
I am quoting Rogers here.
So far your argument is based on inferences that you have made, and not what Rogers has actually said.

Now, let's try this:
Amazing! From the top, mine, the Shroud and Garlaschelli's. As you can see, all of them appear curiously more realistic in negative than they do in real life, and all of them demonstrate a 3-D quality in appropriate manipulation software. One can no doubt quibble about how 'good' my and Garlaschelli's images are, but the achievement of what is frequently claimed as non-achievable cannot be denied.

The pictures look nice (congrats on that), but I'm pretty sure the flaw in your work is similar to the flaw in Luigi Garlaschelli's work.
I am very confident that the image you created does not exhibit the same physical characteristics as the image on the Shroud it self.
So I have no problem at all asserting that recreating the image on the Shroud is 'non-achievable' by any known natural or artificial process.

Now if someone could somehow create the same 3-D negative image using Roger's Mallard reaction process. That would be significant.

DBowling,

You have done an admirable job in this thread!

The pictures look nice (congrats on that), but I'm pretty sure the flaw in your work is similar to the flaw in Luigi Garlaschelli's work.
I am very confident that the image you created does not exhibit the same physical characteristics as the image on the Shroud it self.
So I have no problem at all asserting that recreating the image on the Shroud is 'non-achievable' by any known natural or artificial process.

Quite correct and to this day, that is still the biggest thorn in the side of those that deny the Shroud's authenticity.
They have not been able to explain or replicate the image with 21st century technology, much less 14th century.

If I recall correctly the closest anyone has truly come to replicating the image ( the image only) and it physical characteristic was via radiation.

Yes, I thought that would happen.
Me: "The 3-D effect [...] can easily be found and recreated on any modern image software such as ImageJ."
Response: "My understanding is that no one to date has been able to replicate the 3-D negative image that we see on the Shroud... much less 'easily'."
Me: Here you go then. "As you can see, all of them appear curiously more realistic in negative than they do in real life, and all of them demonstrate a 3-D quality in appropriate manipulation software."
Response: "That doesn't count...."
Well, little by little. I can make an image with both 3-D and negative characteristics, and I can make an image without using any pigment, and I can make an image which doesn't penetrate the cloth. All of them, and easily. What I can't do, yet, is all three at the same time, but will anybody bet I never will?

PaulSacramento wrote:If I recall correctly the closest anyone has truly come to replicating the image ( the image only) and it physical characteristic was via radiation.

No. Nowhere near. Paolo di Lazzaro has made a very good job of imitating degradation characteristics of the surface of a linen cloth similar to those of the image by using a high-powered laser, but nothing more.

And Rogers. Yes, he continued to believe Heller and Adlers ideas about the blood/image sequence even though his own ideas contradicted the evidence upon which it was based.

What I can't do, yet, is all three at the same time, but will anybody bet I never will?

Good luck with that - quite a few have tried. And many are highly motivated to debunk the Shroud, per their agnosticism or atheism. To say, "Well, one day someone might figure out how to do it." That's like those who say, "There is a Godless solution to the universe, it's just that we don't yet know it." It's just floating a speculation upon a possibility that we presently have no reason to believe. Yes, while the word "presently" may be key, it would appear that all known technologies of the ancients would make this impossible. But also, even getting creative in the present, using all of the knowledge we now have, using what would have been available to medieval artists, we've not replicated it.

As for Hugh's photos, please only post close-ups. But those other two look nothing like the Shroud image.

hughfarey wrote:The image on the Shroud is either a discolouration of the surface cells of the fibres - also resulting in their 'corroded' appearance - or it is a discolouration of a superficial additional layer, possibly resulting in a 'crackled' appearance. Rogers opted for the latter, and made numerous claims for it which directly contradicted the findings of Heller and Adler. He claimed that their 'corroded' surface was in fact his 'crackled' layer, denying their absolute denial of any additions of any kind. He claimed that his layer was made of starch, directly contradicting their negative findings of any starch on the Shroud. All three scientists were giants in their respective fields, with strong personalities. It is such a pity that they were not able to rationalise their differences themselves.

Now, let's try this:

Amazing! From the top, mine, the Shroud and Garlaschelli's. As you can see, all of them appear curiously more realistic in negative than they do in real life, and all of them demonstrate a 3-D quality in appropriate manipulation software. One can no doubt quibble about how 'good' my and Garlaschelli's images are, but the achievement of what is frequently claimed as non-achievable cannot be denied.

Just by eye-balling it,you can tell they are nothing like the shroud image. If they are not eye-balling it? They won't be microsopically either.Yes,it can be denied by producing images nothing like the shroud image.The real shroud image has much more detail than the others do,it is built into the image itself.You have not shown how the image was produced and still have'nt got close.This is just taking you off on a rabbit trail that leads to nowhere,especially when you reject lazer like light as the source of the image that has got as close as man can get.If you were really serious about finding out how the image was produced?Lazer like light is the direction to go in.

hughfarey wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If I recall correctly the closest anyone has truly come to replicating the image ( the image only) and it physical characteristic was via radiation.

No. Nowhere near. Paolo di Lazzaro has made a very good job of imitating degradation characteristics of the surface of a linen cloth similar to those of the image by using a high-powered laser, but nothing more.

And Rogers. Yes, he continued to believe Heller and Adlers ideas about the blood/image sequence even though his own ideas contradicted the evidence upon which it was based.

The Paulo Di Lazzaro that said this:

So what formed the image? The best description is that it is an extremely delicate singe marking. Italian physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro concedes in an article for National Geographic that every scientific attempt to replicate it in a lab has failed. “Its precise hue is highly unusual, and the color’s penetration into the fabric is extremely thin, less than 0.7 micrometers (0.000028 inches), one-thirtieth the diameter of an individual fiber in a single 200-fiber linen thread.”

[…]

They came tantalizingly close to replicating the image’s distinctive color on a few square centimeters of fabric. However, they were unable to match all the physical and chemical characteristics of the shroud image, and reproducing a whole human figure was far beyond them. De Lazzaro explained that the ultraviolet light necessary to reproduce the image of the crucified man “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today.” The time for such a burst would be shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and the intensity of the ultra violet light would have to be around several billion watts.”

https://shroudstory.com/tag/paolo-di-lazzaro/

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.o ... thing.html

Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) experimented for five years, using modern excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image’s coloration.

They came tantalizingly close to replicating the image’s distinctive color on a few square centimeters of fabric. However, they were unable to match all the physical and chemical characteristics of the shroud image, and reproducing a whole human figure was far beyond them. De Lazzaro explained that the ultraviolet light necessary to reproduce the image of the crucified man “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today.” The time for such a burst would be shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and the intensity of the ultra violet light would have to be around several billion watts.”

The scientists shrug and say the only explanation lies beyond the realm of twenty-first century technoscience. In other words, the extraordinary burst of ultra violet light is not only beyond the ability and technology of a medieval forger: It is beyond the ability and technology of the best twenty-first century scientists.

Not sure what point you're making. Paolo di Lazzaro has achieved a few square millimetres of discoloured linen. The characteristics appear to resemble the microscopic characteristics of the Shroud. Something very similar can be obtained by brushing a cloth lightly with a hot spatula, although di Lazzaro has managed to eliminate the fluorescence that normally attends such a scorch. To pretend that this is an "image" of any kind suggests that you haven't read his paper. It's at http://www.frascati.enea.it/fis/lac/exc ... 20JIST.pdf.

hughfarey wrote:Yes, I thought that would happen.
Me: "The 3-D effect [...] can easily be found and recreated on any modern image software such as ImageJ."
Response: "My understanding is that no one to date has been able to replicate the 3-D negative image that we see on the Shroud... much less 'easily'."
Me: Here you go then. "As you can see, all of them appear curiously more realistic in negative than they do in real life, and all of them demonstrate a 3-D quality in appropriate manipulation software."

Since you quoted a statement from me above (see bold).
I think it is only fair for me to point out that my statement was accurate when I made it, and it still remains accurate even after you posted the pictures.

If the image that you created does not exhibit the same physical characteristics as the image that is found on the Shroud, Then by definition
You have not "been able to replicate the 3-D negative image that we see on the Shroud"
which also means
You have not been able to replicate the 3-D negative image that we see on the Shroud "easily"

What I can't do, yet, is all three at the same time, but will anybody bet I never will?

I'm pretty confident that you never will be able to replicate the image on the Shroud.
But... if I'm wrong and you do manage to somehow replicate the image on the Shroud, then the notoriety you would gain as a result would make any bet I could possibly make meaningless to you.

And rightfully so!

PaulSacramento wrote:http://www.theimaginativeconservative.o ... thing.html

Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) experimented for five years, using modern excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image’s coloration.

They came tantalizingly close to replicating the image’s distinctive color on a few square centimeters of fabric. However, they were unable to match all the physical and chemical characteristics of the shroud image, and reproducing a whole human figure was far beyond them. De Lazzaro explained that the ultraviolet light necessary to reproduce the image of the crucified man “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today.” The time for such a burst would be shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and the intensity of the ultra violet light would have to be around several billion watts.”

The scientists shrug and say the only explanation lies beyond the realm of twenty-first century technoscience. In other words, the extraordinary burst of ultra violet light is not only beyond the ability and technology of a medieval forger: It is beyond the ability and technology of the best twenty-first century scientists.

maybe there was a time traveler that went back into time and brought his device with him to the 14th century to create this image .
Plus if a forger wanted to fool a 14th century audience he could have done this without going through all of this . He simply would have painted an image and sold this off as one of the many fake Catholic relics that were circulating at that time .

The fact that Hugh doesn't even consider this is amazing .