Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Evidence

Geogeer
Posts: 4,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 2:32:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A short while ago Bladerunner noted his intention to improve the level of discourse in this forum. Since then I've started to poke my head in here a bit more again.

The range of discourse has sadly been reduced to almost nothing with the same arguments going in circles. As such in order to do my part to help out the revitalization of this forum I'm going to try to start up some interesting topics. Furthermore, I am going to lift my own self-imposed ban against responding to certain members on this board for this thread.

I will try to respond to all serious questions on this forum, but please be advised that I work many hours a week and I have a newborn child at home. Thus the speed with which I can work through the questions will be limited.

What I keep on hearing over and over again is atheists asking for evidence. Now evidence is not proof. Evidence is just a marker. I have long believed that God provides enough evidence for those who want to believe; without the evidence being so great that you are forced to believe. I also believe that God provides a variety of evidence, as we all have different personalities God will give us what we need.

While I admit that I am rusty on the topic, and several of the online resources that I used to use are no longer there, I will endeavour to find adequate links and responses.

So with no further ado I present evidence for Christianity #1 - The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin is 2 cubits wide and 8 cubits long (3'-7" x 14'-3") linen cloth woven in a 3-over-1 herringbone pattern.

The image on the cloth is that of a man crucified in the manner that Jesus was recorded to have been crucified. The image on the cloth is faint and must be viewed from about 5'+ away (like a jumbo-tron).

http://www.debate.org...

Modern study on the shroud started in 1898 when Secondo Pia took a picture of the shroud. When he first took a look at the shroud he was unimpressed at the object. However, when he viewed the glass negative of the picture he took he nearly dropped the photo. He found that the image became amazingly clear when on the negative. This meant that the shroud itself was a photographic negative and the negative he was holding was actually the photo.

http://www.debate.org...

In the early 1970's a picture of the shroud was placed in a VP8 analyzer. The VP8 analyzer was to create isometric images from arial photographs by analyzing light and dark areas. From this photo a 3D image was produced. This took everybody completely by surprise.

http://www.debate.org...

In 1978 a team of Scientists were given access to the Shroud in order to conduct a series of analyses on it. The conclusions of the team were as follows:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.


So we have an ancient cloth that bears the image of man crucified in the same manner as Jesus, that exhibits phenomena unheard of in any ancient work of art. Additionally, there is no known method or means, either ancient or modern, of reproducing the image in its totality.

There is a great deal more to say on the topic, particularly the history of the Shroud. However, I figure that it is best to let this develop from here. I will fill in additional points as we go.

I invite everyone to join in so long as you remain respectful. Depending on the level of response I may make note of it in the Science forum as well.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 3:02:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

There is a great deal more to say on the topic, particularly the history of the Shroud. However, I figure that it is best to let this develop from here. I will fill in additional points as we go.

I invite everyone to join in so long as you remain respectful. Depending on the level of response I may make note of it in the Science forum as well.

http://skepdic.com...

Top down, we potentially have the burial shroud of some one whom was scourged and crucified by the Romans. That is hardly a rarity, and hardly indicates that it was Jesus' specific shroud.

The problem with a lot of the things in the Bible is that the modern day 'evidence' we find of it is underwhelming to the story, or simply not present. The Ark of the Covenant was incredibly specifically built, also incredibly important to the people of its time, why is it not in a museum (excuse the Indiana Jones reference). There are hundreds of other artifacts that are older that bore no specific signifigance, but were found and catalogued, and there were indeed older artifacts mentioned by older cultures (thought not specfically religious artifacts) that were in keeping with the place and people of their relation.

There should be some incredible works, and incredible evidence to follow the tales we read about from the book. You would think a firebombed city that was razed from divine Hellfire would be easy to find, turns out the closest thing we have as a match to Sodom and Gomorrah were some smaller cities that were sacked and raided by nearby kings a few years before they were to have been levelled.

The evidence that is being asked for is something that while might not be universally agreed on to the details, can at least have reasonable concurrence as to what it means. For instance, should a few followers of JC have been present after the water/wine or feed the masses stories, and began their own sect to follow or spread the word of his good deeds, the exact relation of those events might not be identical to the Bible, but at least the readers have another account to point as to the message's validity. Why is it that some one so controversial, touch so many people, RAISED THE DEAD, we can barely find evidence of the name of the prefect that sentenced him, much less understand the station of that particular officer.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 3:21:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Radiocarbon testing done by three separate laboratories in 1988 agreed that the cloth dated between 1260 and 1390. Enough said.

Regardless, you have made a so-so case that the image is of someone who was crucified. Where is the link to Jesus though? Tens of thousands were crucified by the Romans over the centuries. What leads anyone to identify the image as belonging to any particular individual? It's just wishful thinking.

Even if we generously granted that this is an image of someone named Jesus, and there is no reason yet why we should, where is the tie-in to the Jesus of legend and to a supernatural god? I fail to see the logical connection. All you have is an image on a cloth which dates to the Medieval Period.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 3:27:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 3:02:32 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

There is a great deal more to say on the topic, particularly the history of the Shroud. However, I figure that it is best to let this develop from here. I will fill in additional points as we go.

I invite everyone to join in so long as you remain respectful. Depending on the level of response I may make note of it in the Science forum as well.

http://skepdic.com...

Top down, we potentially have the burial shroud of some one whom was scourged and crucified by the Romans. That is hardly a rarity, and hardly indicates that it was Jesus' specific shroud.

Crucified with a crown of thorns and speared in the side after death, leaving behind a shroud with his image on it which cannot be explained by science. Lots of those recorded?

The problem with a lot of the things in the Bible is that the modern day 'evidence' we find of it is underwhelming to the story, or simply not present. The Ark of the Covenant was incredibly specifically built, also incredibly important to the people of its time, why is it not in a museum (excuse the Indiana Jones reference). There are hundreds of other artifacts that are older that bore no specific signifigance, but were found and catalogued, and there were indeed older artifacts mentioned by older cultures (thought not specfically religious artifacts) that were in keeping with the place and people of their relation.

Sorry but irrelevant to the topic at hand.

There should be some incredible works, and incredible evidence to follow the tales we read about from the book. You would think a firebombed city that was razed from divine Hellfire would be easy to find, turns out the closest thing we have as a match to Sodom and Gomorrah were some smaller cities that were sacked and raided by nearby kings a few years before they were to have been levelled.

This too is irrelevant, but they think they have found the cities.

http://www.christiananswers.net...

The evidence that is being asked for is something that while might not be universally agreed on to the details, can at least have reasonable concurrence as to what it means. For instance, should a few followers of JC have been present after the water/wine or feed the masses stories, and began their own sect to follow or spread the word of his good deeds, the exact relation of those events might not be identical to the Bible, but at least the readers have another account to point as to the message's validity. Why is it that some one so controversial, touch so many people, RAISED THE DEAD, we can barely find evidence of the name of the prefect that sentenced him, much less understand the station of that particular officer.

Once again this is not the topic being debated here.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 3:46:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 3:27:11 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2014 3:02:32 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

There is a great deal more to say on the topic, particularly the history of the Shroud. However, I figure that it is best to let this develop from here. I will fill in additional points as we go.

I invite everyone to join in so long as you remain respectful. Depending on the level of response I may make note of it in the Science forum as well.

http://skepdic.com...

Top down, we potentially have the burial shroud of some one whom was scourged and crucified by the Romans. That is hardly a rarity, and hardly indicates that it was Jesus' specific shroud.

Crucified with a crown of thorns and speared in the side after death, leaving behind a shroud with his image on it which cannot be explained by science. Lots of those recorded?

You might wanna read the link with regards to that 'not explained by science' aspect.

The problem with a lot of the things in the Bible is that the modern day 'evidence' we find of it is underwhelming to the story, or simply not present. The Ark of the Covenant was incredibly specifically built, also incredibly important to the people of its time, why is it not in a museum (excuse the Indiana Jones reference). There are hundreds of other artifacts that are older that bore no specific signifigance, but were found and catalogued, and there were indeed older artifacts mentioned by older cultures (thought not specfically religious artifacts) that were in keeping with the place and people of their relation.

Sorry but irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Evidence of occurence is irrelevant to a forum topic titled 'evidence'?

There should be some incredible works, and incredible evidence to follow the tales we read about from the book. You would think a firebombed city that was razed from divine Hellfire would be easy to find, turns out the closest thing we have as a match to Sodom and Gomorrah were some smaller cities that were sacked and raided by nearby kings a few years before they were to have been levelled.

This too is irrelevant, but they think they have found the cities.

.... hence whey I mentioned the 'closest thing found'. And again, Evidence of occurence is not relevant to a forum thread called 'Evidence'?


http://www.christiananswers.net...

The evidence that is being asked for is something that while might not be universally agreed on to the details, can at least have reasonable concurrence as to what it means. For instance, should a few followers of JC have been present after the water/wine or feed the masses stories, and began their own sect to follow or spread the word of his good deeds, the exact relation of those events might not be identical to the Bible, but at least the readers have another account to point as to the message's validity. Why is it that some one so controversial, touch so many people, RAISED THE DEAD, we can barely find evidence of the name of the prefect that sentenced him, much less understand the station of that particular officer.

Once again this is not the topic being debated here.

So you are limiting a thread entitled 'Evidence' to just the SoTurin, even after introing your thread with: "What I keep on hearing over and over again is atheists asking for evidence. Now evidence is not proof. Evidence is just a marker. I have long believed that God provides enough evidence for those who want to believe; without the evidence being so great that you are forced to believe. I also believe that God provides a variety of evidence, as we all have different personalities God will give us what we need."

If the topic is simply the Shroud of Turin, then I would suggest you read the link posted, and the other poster's input regarding how 'unexplained' the Shroud actually is.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:16:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 3:21:24 AM, dee-em wrote:
Radiocarbon testing done by three separate laboratories in 1988 agreed that the cloth dated between 1260 and 1390. Enough said.

You must keep up on the science.

The laboratories failed to follow good scientific method. All 3 labs tested material from the same corner of the shroud instead of 3 different locations. And the labs failed to perform a micro-chemical analysis of the material to verify that it was chemically similar to the remainder of the shroud.

Additionally, when choosing where to remove material from the shroud for testing, the most damaged corner was chosen. The people did not review the work of the 1978 STURP team. The shroud had been photographed using x-ray fluorescence. This showed the tested corner to be chemically different from the remainder of the shroud.

A close up photograph of the corner where the samples were taken from were brought to several textile experts. These experts said that the corner looked like it had been rewoven. 16th Century French reweaving involve untangling a few fibres and weaving in new fibres. The new fibres would be dyed to match in colour leaving the end product invisible to the human eye.

Ray Rogers (a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory) published a paper in the peer reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta http://www.shroud.it.... In this paper Ray Rogers concluded:

The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow"brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Rogers also noted that the main body of the cloth had no vanillin present whereas the affected corner still had high levels of vanillin present. Now the concentration of vanillin decreases over time (kinda like the C14 - just not as accurate) The amount of time required for all the vanillin to be lost like in the main part of the shroud is estimated at 1300-3000 years depending on the temperature that the shroud was stored at.

The the validity of the C14 has been utterly discredited, not because the C14 test is bad science, but because the sample used for the test is dissimilar from the remainder of the shroud. The test is only as good at the sample.

A documentary on this was made by the discovery channel.

For what I've said here is shown at 27:35 onward.

Regardless, you have made a so-so case that the image is of someone who was crucified. Where is the link to Jesus though? Tens of thousands were crucified by the Romans over the centuries. What leads anyone to identify the image as belonging to any particular individual? It's just wishful thinking.

Is there any other recorded person being crucified with a crown of thorns and pierced in the side after death? These are two aspects that can be determined from the shroud.

Even if we generously granted that this is an image of someone named Jesus, and there is no reason yet why we should, where is the tie-in to the Jesus of legend and to a supernatural god? I fail to see the logical connection. All you have is an image on a cloth which dates to the Medieval Period.

As I have shown it doesn't actually date from a medieval period. The connection is that there is no known way to recreate the shroud, modern or ancient. Science demand the ability to reproduce the results.

As I said it is not proof, but it is evidence.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:23:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 3:46:56 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

You might wanna read the link with regards to that 'not explained by science' aspect.

Post your questions here, it is not up to me to read through your skeptics website. Please read through my response on the C14 testing above.

Evidence of occurence is irrelevant to a forum topic titled 'evidence'?

i'm talking about this particular piece of evidence. I'm trying to stay focused on one item at a time.

.... hence whey I mentioned the 'closest thing found'. And again, Evidence of occurence is not relevant to a forum thread called 'Evidence'?

Once again the evidence we are discussing is the Shroud of Turin, not Soddom and Gahmorrah.

So you are limiting a thread entitled 'Evidence' to just the SoTurin, even after introing your thread with: "What I keep on hearing over and over again is atheists asking for evidence. Now evidence is not proof. Evidence is just a marker. I have long believed that God provides enough evidence for those who want to believe; without the evidence being so great that you are forced to believe. I also believe that God provides a variety of evidence, as we all have different personalities God will give us what we need."

For this thread yes. Is that a problem?

If the topic is simply the Shroud of Turin, then I would suggest you read the link posted, and the other poster's input regarding how 'unexplained' the Shroud actually is.

Please read my response to dee-em. Its date is not what the C14 says. Additionally it is still unexplained because nobody has been able to reproduce it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:35:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:16:52 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2014 3:21:24 AM, dee-em wrote:
Radiocarbon testing done by three separate laboratories in 1988 agreed that the cloth dated between 1260 and 1390. Enough said.

You must keep up on the science.

The laboratories failed to follow good scientific method. All 3 labs tested material from the same corner of the shroud instead of 3 different locations. And the labs failed to perform a micro-chemical analysis of the material to verify that it was chemically similar to the remainder of the shroud.

As opposed to the good scientific method which arbitrarily took ... some one's... word for it that it was the Burial shroud of Christ when first introduced (not surprisingly) around the 13th centurty when the supposedly bad science dates it to?


Additionally, when choosing where to remove material from the shroud for testing, the most damaged corner was chosen. The people did not review the work of the 1978 STURP team. The shroud had been photographed using x-ray fluorescence. This showed the tested corner to be chemically different from the remainder of the shroud.

Those concerned are addressed and overcome here:
http://en.wikipedia.org...


A close up photograph of the corner where the samples were taken from were brought to several textile experts. These experts said that the corner looked like it had been rewoven. 16th Century French reweaving involve untangling a few fibres and weaving in new fibres. The new fibres would be dyed to match in colour leaving the end product invisible to the human eye.

Ray Rogers (a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory) published a paper in the peer reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta http://www.shroud.it.... In this paper Ray Rogers concluded:

The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow"brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Rogers also noted that the main body of the cloth had no vanillin present whereas the affected corner still had high levels of vanillin present. Now the concentration of vanillin decreases over time (kinda like the C14 - just not as accurate) The amount of time required for all the vanillin to be lost like in the main part of the shroud is estimated at 1300-3000 years depending on the temperature that the shroud was stored at.

The the validity of the C14 has been utterly discredited, not because the C14 test is bad science, but because the sample used for the test is dissimilar from the remainder of the shroud. The test is only as good at the sample.

A documentary on this was made by the discovery channel.



For what I've said here is shown at 27:35 onward.

Regardless, you have made a so-so case that the image is of someone who was crucified. Where is the link to Jesus though? Tens of thousands were crucified by the Romans over the centuries. What leads anyone to identify the image as belonging to any particular individual? It's just wishful thinking.

Is there any other recorded person being crucified with a crown of thorns and pierced in the side after death? These are two aspects that can be determined from the shroud.

Even if we generously granted that this is an image of someone named Jesus, and there is no reason yet why we should, where is the tie-in to the Jesus of legend and to a supernatural god? I fail to see the logical connection. All you have is an image on a cloth which dates to the Medieval Period.

As I have shown it doesn't actually date from a medieval period. The connection is that there is no known way to recreate the shroud, modern or ancient. Science demand the ability to reproduce the results.

As I said it is not proof, but it is evidence.

Which can be used and reasonably speculated to go in a host of other directions. I am just tickled pink that you feel all these experts were called in, and by random coincidence, the one place they cut from to take their samples for testing is both the one place no one gave scrutiny too for a valid sample, and then failed to notice as they were literally putting it under a mircoscope.

Apparently the 13th century weavers were able to repair something so completely as to escape notice of modern observers, and enable such observers to forget about such a repair even occuring.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:46:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:23:27 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2014 3:46:56 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

You might wanna read the link with regards to that 'not explained by science' aspect.

Post your questions here, it is not up to me to read through your skeptics website. Please read through my response on the C14 testing above.

Then the short answer is as was previously mentioned, the concerns you make mention of are talked about by the experts whom investigated the Shroud, and they are rather confident they did things correctly in '88. I am not posting questions, I am posting a source as to why the Shroud is not plausible evidence, to the incredulity that seems to haunt it at every turn.



Please read my response to dee-em. Its date is not what the C14 says. Additionally it is still unexplained because nobody has been able to reproduce it.

http://www.nydailynews.com...

Nobody, and of course this one Italian guy.

So, is what we have thus far is a replication with items and processes of the time of the 13th century, Carbon dating in which all experts of their fields state it was a good sample, good test, and good science which pegs it to the 13th century, no credible record of the Shroud's travels before the 13th century

vs

nay sayers claiming the wrong patch of the cloth was taken (but no counter tests done to demonstrate when the REST of the cloth was dated to), naysayers claiming science can replicate it (when it has been).
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:48:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:16:52 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/1/2014 3:21:24 AM, dee-em wrote:
Radiocarbon testing done by three separate laboratories in 1988 agreed that the cloth dated between 1260 and 1390. Enough said.

You must keep up on the science.

The laboratories failed to follow good scientific method. All 3 labs tested material from the same corner of the shroud instead of 3 different locations. And the labs failed to perform a micro-chemical analysis of the material to verify that it was chemically similar to the remainder of the shroud.

Additionally, when choosing where to remove material from the shroud for testing, the most damaged corner was chosen. The people did not review the work of the 1978 STURP team. The shroud had been photographed using x-ray fluorescence. This showed the tested corner to be chemically different from the remainder of the shroud.

A close up photograph of the corner where the samples were taken from were brought to several textile experts. These experts said that the corner looked like it had been rewoven. 16th Century French reweaving involve untangling a few fibres and weaving in new fibres. The new fibres would be dyed to match in colour leaving the end product invisible to the human eye.

Ray Rogers (a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory) published a paper in the peer reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta http://www.shroud.it.... In this paper Ray Rogers concluded:

The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow"brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Rogers also noted that the main body of the cloth had no vanillin present whereas the affected corner still had high levels of vanillin present. Now the concentration of vanillin decreases over time (kinda like the C14 - just not as accurate) The amount of time required for all the vanillin to be lost like in the main part of the shroud is estimated at 1300-3000 years depending on the temperature that the shroud was stored at.

The the validity of the C14 has been utterly discredited, not because the C14 test is bad science, but because the sample used for the test is dissimilar from the remainder of the shroud. The test is only as good at the sample.

Of course. When the results don't suit, the excuses start. The tested piece was representative despite the spurious objections above. The wikipedia article which FaustianJustice linked you to refutes all these issues. It is you who is not up on the science.

A documentary on this was made by the discovery channel.



For what I've said here is shown at 27:35 onward.

Refuted in the wikipedia article.

Regardless, you have made a so-so case that the image is of someone who was crucified. Where is the link to Jesus though? Tens of thousands were crucified by the Romans over the centuries. What leads anyone to identify the image as belonging to any particular individual? It's just wishful thinking.

Is there any other recorded person being crucified with a crown of thorns and pierced in the side after death? These are two aspects that can be determined from the shroud.

Thorns? Where did that suddenly come from? Can you prove that?

What piercing to the side?

Here is what wikipedia has to say:

Reddish brown stains that have been said to include whole blood are found on the cloth, showing various wounds that, according to proponents, correlate with the yellowish image, the pathophysiology of crucifixion, and the Biblical description of the death of Jesus:[10] However forensic tests conducted on the shroud in the late 70s describe the apparent bloodstains as tempera paint tinted red with hematite, and deny the presence of blood.[11]

Even if we generously granted that this is an image of someone named Jesus, and there is no reason yet why we should, where is the tie-in to the Jesus of legend and to a supernatural god? I fail to see the logical connection. All you have is an image on a cloth which dates to the Medieval Period.

As I have shown it doesn't actually date from a medieval period.

Yeah, it does.

The connection is that there is no known way to recreate the shroud, modern or ancient. Science demand the ability to reproduce the results.

Oh don't be ridiculous. Science demands predictable results when an experiment is well-documented. Science is not necessarily Sherlock Holmes. Besides there are a score of methods which have been used to reproduce the look of the shroud with near identical results:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because the authenticists don't accept them doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

As I said it is not proof, but it is evidence.

Not a good start if this is the best you have.
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 7:25:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 2:32:48 AM, Geogeer wrote:

The image on the cloth is that of a man crucified in the manner that Jesus was recorded to have been crucified. The image on the cloth is faint and must be viewed from about 5'+ away (like a jumbo-tron).

According to the bible, Jesus' crucifixion was done with nails through his hands and feet. The image on the shroud indicates differently (wrists as opposed to hands).

It seems to me that the shroud, as much of a mystery as it may be, is not an image of Jesus.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
bulproof
Posts: 25,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 7:43:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you place a flat cloth on a human face/head that has a capacity to replicate that face/head and it conforms to the face/head then when you return that cloth to it's flat state the sides of of the head would look like wings to the face. Don't you get it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 8:39:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 2:32:48 AM, Geogeer wrote:
A short while ago Bladerunner noted his intention to improve the level of discourse in this forum. Since then I've started to poke my head in here a bit more again.

The range of discourse has sadly been reduced to almost nothing with the same arguments going in circles. As such in order to do my part to help out the revitalization of this forum I'm going to try to start up some interesting topics. Furthermore, I am going to lift my own self-imposed ban against responding to certain members on this board for this thread.

I will try to respond to all serious questions on this forum, but please be advised that I work many hours a week and I have a newborn child at home. Thus the speed with which I can work through the questions will be limited.

What I keep on hearing over and over again is atheists asking for evidence. Now evidence is not proof. Evidence is just a marker. I have long believed that God provides enough evidence for those who want to believe; without the evidence being so great that you are forced to believe. I also believe that God provides a variety of evidence, as we all have different personalities God will give us what we need.

While I admit that I am rusty on the topic, and several of the online resources that I used to use are no longer there, I will endeavour to find adequate links and responses.

So with no further ado I present evidence for Christianity #1 - The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin is 2 cubits wide and 8 cubits long (3'-7" x 14'-3") linen cloth woven in a 3-over-1 herringbone pattern.

The image on the cloth is that of a man crucified in the manner that Jesus was recorded to have been crucified. The image on the cloth is faint and must be viewed from about 5'+ away (like a jumbo-tron).

http://www.debate.org...

Modern study on the shroud started in 1898 when Secondo Pia took a picture of the shroud. When he first took a look at the shroud he was unimpressed at the object. However, when he viewed the glass negative of the picture he took he nearly dropped the photo. He found that the image became amazingly clear when on the negative. This meant that the shroud itself was a photographic negative and the negative he was holding was actually the photo.

http://www.debate.org...

In the early 1970's a picture of the shroud was placed in a VP8 analyzer. The VP8 analyzer was to create isometric images from arial photographs by analyzing light and dark areas. From this photo a 3D image was produced. This took everybody completely by surprise.

http://www.debate.org...

In 1978 a team of Scientists were given access to the Shroud in order to conduct a series of analyses on it. The conclusions of the team were as follows:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.


So we have an ancient cloth that bears the image of man crucified in the same manner as Jesus, that exhibits phenomena unheard of in any ancient work of art. Additionally, there is no known method or means, either ancient or modern, of reproducing the image in its totality.

There is a great deal more to say on the topic, particularly the history of the Shroud. However, I figure that it is best to let this develop from here. I will fill in additional points as we go.

I invite everyone to join in so long as you remain respectful. Depending on the level of response I may make note of it in the Science forum as well.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

You can make up your own definitions as much as you want, but they are the same. It's almost like synonyms (they are.) Saying Evidence is not proof is like saying dairy is not milk.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:55:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 8:39:07 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

You can make up your own definitions as much as you want, but they are the same. It's almost like synonyms (they are.) Saying Evidence is not proof is like saying dairy is not milk.

They are not the same. See the bolding and underlining above.

Evidence is the data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood.

Also, 'proof' is a misused word. It is almost impossible to prove anything with 100% confidence outside of logic and mathematics.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 9:44:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 2:32:48 AM, Geogeer wrote:
I have long believed that God provides enough evidence for those who want to believe; without the evidence being so great that you are forced to believe.

Do you believe God wants us to think rationally?

If so, can you explain to me what the desire for something to be true, has to do with reaching a rational conclusion that it is true?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 2:28:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm just writing to apologize for not having continued on with this topic that I started. My IRL became suddenly unrealistically crazy. As such I'm just letting those who answered me know that when things settle down I will provide proper answers. Hopefully in a couple of weeks to a month things will become more settled.

Until then, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
bulproof
Posts: 25,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 3:14:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Paint your face and the sides of your head and place a cloth over your face while lying on your back. Now look at the image revealed on the cloth the sides of your head look like weird wings coming off your face. Is that how the shroud looks? Oh no.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin