Evidence for God from Science

Jac, I'm so sure that FL just loved your little thread history lesson . Actually, I think it got stirred up because FL made some sarcastic, flip remark about some aspect or comment on The Shroud, it was very late a night and responded with a very irked response and challenged him, as subsequently others did. I am very proud of him that he took the time to carefully sift through such copious posts and detailed info (Thanks much to Bippy!), eventually noting how surprised he was that this is no typical, fake relic. And this Shroud issue is a stunning testament to how the popular press can saturate the masses with partial and often incorrect (and redundantly refuted) info, to the point that most Christians have absolutely no idea of how incredible this spiritual artifact is. And to be honest, first reading some of Bip's posts (and with no context) I started out about as cynical as did FL, if perhaps not quite as sarcastic (that'd be hard to do, eh? ).

I've seen discussions elsewhere, and was not much interested. Maybe I am missing something.

Similar discussions on the reality of flood and evolution are to be found. I feel more at home there, having some few years of study in biology and geology. I suppose the arguments are familiar, as are who will take which sides.

Ive a couple of questions to ask anyone who might care to indulge me with a response.
Whether any of you have a reason to care one way or the other how I see the shroud, I wouldnt know, or know why. If someone has a comment on that, I'd be interested. It will make some difference as to whether I spend more time looking into the shroud.

Anyway, my questions for those who feel the shroud is the real thing is..

Do you think that the evidence for a world wide flood is convincing?

Do you think that evolution is wrong, and false science?

Did you apply similar diligence to these topics as you have to the shroud question?

Genetic fallacy, FTW!

Audie wrote: Do you think that the evidence for a world wide flood is convincing?

Do you think that evolution is wrong, and false science?

Did you apply similar diligence to these topics as you have to the shroud question?

What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in Madagascar? But I'll indulge: No, no, you bet.

Jac3510 wrote:Genetic fallacy, FTW!

the topics are closely linked in more ways than one.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: Do you think that the evidence for a world wide flood is convincing?

Do you think that evolution is wrong, and false science?

Did you apply similar diligence to these topics as you have to the shroud question?

What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in Madagascar? But I'll indulge: No, no, you bet.

Ok, one who wont say, and one who I think said that they diligently looked into the matter of whether the creation and flood story are literally true, and found they are not.

Jac3510 wrote:Genetic fallacy, FTW!

1 + 1 will never be 2 if it comes from your mouth Jac.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: Do you think that the evidence for a world wide flood is convincing?

Do you think that evolution is wrong, and false science?

Did you apply similar diligence to these topics as you have to the shroud question?

What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in Madagascar? But I'll indulge: No, no, you bet.

Ok, one who wont say, and one who I think said that they diligently looked into the matter of whether the creation and flood story are literally true, and found they are not.

First, I did not say the creation and flood stories were untrue and second and more improtantly, why do you insist on changing the subject?

As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: Do you think that the evidence for a world wide flood is convincing?

Do you think that evolution is wrong, and false science?

Did you apply similar diligence to these topics as you have to the shroud question?

What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in Madagascar? But I'll indulge: No, no, you bet.

Ok, one who wont say, and one who I think said that they diligently looked into the matter of whether the creation and flood story are literally true, and found they are not.

First, I did not say the creation and flood stories were untrue and second and more improtantly, why do you insist on changing the subject?

First..
You were too cryptic for me with one word answers. Sorry I misread you. I dont know what you meant by your answer.
Second, I am not insisting on anything. I was pretty specific about "if you care to indulge me".

If you do not, that is fine.

No intent to change the subject. It is presented that the evidence is fact based and objectively evaluated, leading to a clear conclusion of authenticity.

I had a specific reason for asking, very much related the post I was answering, about a person examining the evidence and reaching conclusions. I was told that this or that person had doubted, examined evidence, and decided its genuine.

Its reasonable to evaluate a witness on the basis of their track record.
But if nobody wants to address my question, thats fine. Whether or not I investigate the shroud and what conclusion I come to is my affair.


ps "not literally true" and, "untrue" are not the same thing.
I spoke of one, you spoke of the other.

PaulSacramento wrote:As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.

If you dont mind, what conditions are you referring to?
and..
Do you have the same opinion on one side or the other of the subjects I brought up?

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: Do you think that the evidence for a world wide flood is convincing?

Do you think that evolution is wrong, and false science?

Did you apply similar diligence to these topics as you have to the shroud question?

What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in Madagascar? But I'll indulge: No, no, you bet.

Ok, one who wont say, and one who I think said that they diligently looked into the matter of whether the creation and flood story are literally true, and found they are not.

First, I did not say the creation and flood stories were untrue and second and more improtantly, why do you insist on changing the subject?

First..
You were too cryptic for me with one word answers. Sorry I misread you. I dont know what you meant by your answer.
Second, I am not insisting on anything. I was pretty specific about "if you care to indulge me".

If you do not, that is fine.

No intent to change the subject. It is presented that the evidence is fact based and objectively evaluated, leading to a clear conclusion of authenticity.

I had a specific reason for asking, very much related the post I was answering, about a person examining the evidence and reaching conclusions. I was told that this or that person had doubted, examined evidence, and decided its genuine.

Its reasonable to evaluate a witness on the basis of their track record.
But if nobody wants to address my question, thats fine. Whether or not I investigate the shroud and what conclusion I come to is my affair.


ps "not literally true" and, "untrue" are not the same thing.
I spoke of one, you spoke of the other.

Audie, somehow we always end up in this predicament you and I, with too many rabbit trails. Let me see if I can rectify that.

It does no good to 'evaluate' a person's stance on an issue based on their track record vis-a-vis other issues. As Jac indicated, that's a genetic fallacy. Every issue must be looked at in its own view and on its own merits. Nevertheless, I did answer your questions truthfully. I do not believe in a global flood; I think the theory of evolution is the best theory we have that explains the diversity of life on earth; and I've looked at the evidence for the shroud in the same light as any other body of scientific evidence. I hope you find my track record satisfactory.

Good enough, thanks.
No argument on the matter of evaluating issues on their own merits.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.

If you dont mind, what conditions are you referring to?
and..
Do you have the same opinion on one side or the other of the subjects I brought up?

You'd have to go over the thread to see what I am referring to.
As for your question:
No, I do not believe in a global flood, the account can be read as pertaining to a massive localized flood that, according to the literary genre of Genesis, would have been worded as a "world flood".
I believe that what we call evolution is indeed how life came to be on this planet, I believe it was ONE of the process that God used in His creative process.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.

If you dont mind, what conditions are you referring to?
and..
Do you have the same opinion on one side or the other of the subjects I brought up?

You'd have to go over the thread to see what I am referring to.
As for your question:
No, I do not believe in a global flood, the account can be read as pertaining to a massive localized flood that, according to the literary genre of Genesis, would have been worded as a "world flood".
I believe that what we call evolution is indeed how life came to be on this planet, I believe it was ONE of the process that God used in His creative process.

And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?