The empirical, falsifiable, evidence for a supernatural event that I was thinking about is...
The Shroud of Turin.
Science has yet to falsify its genuineness which is indeed falsifiable. They are baffled as to how the image got there, the negative image at that. Paint or ink has been ruled out.
So there you have it, empirical evidence that shows a supernatural event that baffles science. The Shroud of Turin.
BTW, did you see the face of Jesus?
If you haven't, watch it on the History Channel Sunday, Jul 18, 4/3c to see the science behind the shroud, especially the scanner part where to verify the image authenticity he takes a regular desktop scanner and scans the Bust to reproduce the exact image on the shroud thus testing, replicating, and verifying his findings.
Now before the claim of the shroud being "proven" fake:
The Shroud is the real deal.
Something was discovered, and the original scientists agree with, that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point.
This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.
From another study it says:
Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.
The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.
The recanting of the claim the shroud was a fake is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.
The Shroud of Turin is the real deal. Science has shows that evidence.
So, no more claim by Atheists that there is no evidence of supernatural events, please.
UPDATE: In reflection and after reading something written from AIG:
Like the Rich Man (Luke 16:31), we have God's Word. Anyone not prepared to believe God's Word won't be persuaded even if a dead person came to warn them.
Matthew 28 explains that the chief priests had money given to the soldiers so they would report the body of Jesus was stolen instead. Jesus had obviously risen from the dead, and they refused to believe!
Noah's Ark was a sign to the pre-flood world that God judges sin and that in His grace He provides a way to escape from judgment. All through scripture, God gave the Israelites sign after sign and they rejected His Word.
So no matter what evidence appears it will be rejected by the Atheists, just like the many people did throughout the Bible. God save them all.
Bit.ly/ShroudDA
"All empirical evidence and logical reasoning concerning the Shroud of Turin will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the Shroud is an artifact created by an artist in the fourteenth-century." --Steven D. Schafersman
ReplyDeleteDan, didn't we go through this already?
ReplyDeleteI mean, for goodness' sake, you link to the very post where I post links that shoot this down.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that:
So there you have it, empirical evidence that shows a supernatural event that baffles science.?
What about this?
I don't buy this. Don't you have something that even Christians don't dispute?
ReplyDeleteHoly shit, Dan. Did you get hit with a massive dose of Biblical retardation? Did someone skull fuck you and do irreparable brain damage? My avatar is a more accurate representation of what a first century Palestinian male Jew would have looked like. Man, you have one of the worst cases of Way of the Master-itis I've ever heard about.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see the confirmation of a supernatural event. At the very best, you have an unexplained artifact. I am reminded of the "god of the gaps" argument, which basicly says "we don't know how this happened, therefore godidit." Furthermore, I did not miss the part, in your link, where it said the images were enhanced.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, as I understand it, the ancient Egyptian mummification process is also unexplained. Do you tout that as evidence of the supernatural as well?
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteJust because you show a link that has a faint Jesus representation does not mean the Shroud was indeed falsified.
Did that link explain the blood patterns? Reproduce the blood pattern? Has the proposed evidence that you gave been peer reviewed?
Again you brought up a good point
>>Dan, you do realize that nowhere in any bible version does it say that there was anything special about the supposed shroud that [J]esus was wrapped in?
And I acknowledged that point was valid. BUT when further researched I did see the shroud was mentioned (Mark 15:46).
Maybe, the time for the image to appear took some years to reveal itself.
Glen20,
ReplyDeleteSo if someone says something it is the gospel truth? Really?
Can I play?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, didn't we go through this already?
Do you remember next saying that Zilch was right?
Well, you were wrong about that, but I don't remember you saying, or admitting so, or even retracting your statement. So how can you be trusted about anything you say? You are not even honest to yourself.
Did you not like my comment Dan? It seems to have disappeared.
ReplyDeleteThe shroud is not evidence for a supernatural event, or any event for that matter. It is only an unexplained artifact. As I understand it, we can't explain the ancient Egyptian mummification process either. Are we to infer that that is somehow supernatural too?
Hell, Dan, I don't even need to do the work on this one. If the Shroud is anything but a 14th century fraud, then Jesus was a hypocephalic cretin.
ReplyDeleteThis note is intended to describe why, from an artistic and anatomical perspective, the shroud image is an embarrassingly obvious fraud committed by a Gothic artist following the standard conventions of his time. The artistic errors are so severe that it is impossible for the shroud to record the image of an actual human body--unless it was a very seriously pathological person with a brain the size of a Homo erectus.
So, really, I'm seeing why you kept referring to this as "falsifiable" evidence...
So there you have it, empirical evidence that shows a supernatural event that baffles science. The Shroud of Turin.
ReplyDeleteAssuming you are right that science is baffled, that doesnt mean the answer must be supernatural. Obviosuly. Otherwise we would never have discovered how anything works, from fire to why the sun rises every day.
Looks like others have previousl shown you that science isn't in fact baffled by it anyway.
Didnt I just post successfully to this thread an hour or two ago? Second time in recent weeks a post of mine has been removed Dan?
ReplyDeleteAny reason for deleting two of my posts Dan?
ReplyDeleteAnd again Dan? Reason? Whats that, 4 comments deleted today? Lol.
ReplyDelete4 Comments deleted and counting today. Or was it 5?
ReplyDeleteSo what you're saying is, this is supposed to be the piece of cloth that was wrapped over the dead Jesus, and his image was magically bound into the cloth.
ReplyDeleteHere's a fun experiment. Cover yourself in paint, and press a sheet down over your body. Maybe have a couple of people patting it to get it pressed down right.
Then peel it off (do all this quickly, so you don't suffocate or something). Do you see how the image is all distorted, as a 3-dimensional object is transferred to a 2-dimensional one?
People have looked into this already:
This note is intended to describe why, from an artistic and anatomical perspective, the shroud image is an embarrassingly obvious fraud committed by a Gothic artist following the standard conventions of his time. The artistic errors are so severe that it is impossible for the shroud to record the image of an actual human body--unless it was a very seriously pathological person with a brain the size of a Homo erectus.
Or to put it another way, if the Shroud is what it's claimed to be, then Jesus was a hypocephalic cretin.
You see, when it was painted (the most accurate tests place this between AD1260 and AD1390), holy relics were big business. There were entire forests worth of "pieces of the True Cross," tons of metal smelted into "Passion nails," and every other possible thing they could fake.
But that's OK. As you said, they're Roman Catholics, so they're most likely going to hell anyway, right?
woohoo! 5 comments deleted today! I must be doing something right eh Dan?
ReplyDeleteYo, Oranges, don't feel like you're alone. I had two from last night pulled. Publius had one. While it's a standard right-wing/fundy tactic (You run out of answers, you shut down the questioner), I guess we could be generous and assume he's having "server problems." I have noted some weird errors when I post.
ReplyDeleteUntil further evidence comes to light, I'm gonna stay agnostic on this subject, too.
Now they're back, including mine. Maybe it isn't Danny boy.
ReplyDeleteYes, back indeed. Posts not appearing is understandable, technology and all that. Posts that do appear when you post, stay for a few mins, then vanish. Thats odd.
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps blogger has an issue, perfectly possible, I'm happy to admit Dan might not be to blame at all.
@Reynold
ReplyDeleteSheet glass wasn't developed until the 11th century... The shroud is much older than this which makes it a bit more difficult to 'reproduce' with your method outlined in the link.
So now it just looks like I'm repeating myself. Ah, well. That's the way life is sometimes...
ReplyDeleteNamed Cynic (Bill),
ReplyDeleteI will expect an apology for that bigoted comment about Christians, "standard right-wing/fundy tactic"
Aren't you and Orange old enough to take the advice of the Kinks in Destroyer?
"Paranoia, they destroy ya."
Get off the crack man! Silly boy ya' self-destroyer.
Gee, Dan, so you didn't read the whole comment? Hell, man, I defended you.
ReplyDeleteAs for you being cranky that other blogs might delete posts and the like, while you might not like it, it is pretty standard. Easiest example would be Stormy, who doesn't even allow responses.
How about this guy, who deleted all my responses, but left his own, lending an odd "talking to the voices in his head" air to the whole thing.
Some people go so far as to change what you write. (I'm a little crude in that one, so... y'know, sorry, but that's life.)
I have other examples, if you'd like. Feel free to thumb through here if you'd prefer to find them on your own.
So what was it you wanted me to apologize for again?
Genome joins the fray
ReplyDeleteMwahahahahhaha
Yea, how is it that by using modern technology they get to pseudo reproduce the Shroud (that is not to say I believe they have), means the original is a fake?
Remember how far back it was, it was never done again (the only one of existence), it baffles mankind to this day. The technology back then was not up to par with today's technology yet it still, to this day, cannot be readily reproduced.
Now the most important part.
The link you provided Reynold only showed one very bad picture of the reproduction. Why? If they "indeed" reproduced it perfectly then why not plaster it all over the internet? Besides, I know how to use photo shop also.
So why not many samplings of the reproduction to show the evidence?
One grainy photo? Really? That is all it took to convince you?
Plus, I see where you got that Bible point that you made from the top list for Skeptics.
Did you see #23?
"The "positive" image shows a figure with white hair and beard, the opposite of what would be expected for a Palestinian Jew in his thirties."
White hair? Really?
*snicker
I guess blood is white also, if you are actually following this garbage.
This also kind of reminds me of the headlines that were plastered all over that "Scientists created life!"
Then as you dig deeper we find that the resulting cell was not wholly synthetic--only its DNA was.
"This research verifies that the Creator's handiwork is fabulous. If a team of brilliant scientists only succeeded in copying information from a germ to a computer and back to a germ, then the Originator of that information must be far more brilliant and worthy of acclaim." (ICR)
My long point is, although I am not at all convinced it was done yet, even if it can be reproduced in today's technology it still doesn't even come close to how wonderfully perfect the original is.
Good point Genome, I can tell I like you already. :7)
14th century.
ReplyDelete(Blogger must be having an off day, my comments have disappeared!)
ReplyDeleteGenome said...
ReplyDelete@Reynold
Sheet glass wasn't developed until the 11th century... The shroud is much older than this which makes it a bit more difficult to 'reproduce' with your method outlined in the link.
Huh? The shroud itself was dated to the 14th century. So what's the problem?
Remember how far back it was, it was never done again (the only one of existence), it baffles mankind to this day. The technology back then was not up to par with today's technology yet it still, to this day, cannot be readily reproduced.
Huh? They have reproduced it, a few years ago.
The link you provided Reynold only showed one very bad picture of the reproduction. Why? If they "indeed" reproduced it perfectly then why not plaster it all over the internet? Besides, I know how to use photo shop also.
Think, if you think that it was photoshopped, then the number of pictures isn't really relevent, is it? Many pictures can be photoshopped as easily as one can.
But, if you want more than one picture...you may also note what the guy says about the "blood":
Figure 4. The tape of a Shroud blood-image (area 3-CB) showing only a red ochre paint image also at high magnification. (see: Judgement Day For The Turin Shroud, p. 91, Figure 22)
These figures show conclusively that the Shroud blood images are paint. I don’t understand how anyone could draw any other conclusion from those results.
Would it have made any difference to you if they had "plastered" it all over the internet?
Plus, I see where you got that Bible point that you made from the top list for Skeptics.
Did you see #23?
"The "positive" image shows a figure with white hair and beard, the opposite of what would be expected for a Palestinian Jew in his thirties."
White hair? Really?
*snicker
I guess blood is white also, if you are actually following this garbage.
Read it again: ...the OPPOSITE of what would be expected for a Palestinian Jew in his thirties
Also, it's point 28, not point 23.
That site is not one I remember linking to before, but it does have some information that refutes the shroud.
Then, as I said once before in a previous post, where in any bible version does it mention anything about any images found on his burial clothes?
You'd think that if there were, the bible would have mentioned it right off the bat.
Shit, I have the wrong link within this statement:
ReplyDeleteBut, if you want more than one picture...you may also note what the guy says about the "blood":
There's the link I should have had in there, where he has pictures and talks about the ochre and blood comparisons.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Huh? The shroud itself was dated to the 14th century. So what's the problem?
FAIL, FOUL. I just knew someone would try that stunt, that is why I re-posted the UPDATED finding to that false claim.
Start with "This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings."
And keep reading. *sigh
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Huh? They have reproduced it, a few years ago.
FAIL You have not shown evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it has been identically reproduced, that it is repeatable, and verified.
Testable, repeatable, and verifiable. You know, science. You have failed thus far to show the evidence. "hey, a website said it" is NOT evidence.
>>But, if you want more than one picture...you may also note what the guy says about the "blood":
ReplyDeleteIts still limited to one photo, the reproduced shroud had no more pictures. Blood data did, but still does not show evidence of the shroud's material and chemical composition in comparison to the faux techniques.
Wow, would never have guessed that the marketing of the finding were to slut his newest book, who would of thunk? *marketing >.<
>>Then, as I said once before in a previous post, where in any bible version does it mention anything about any images found on his burial clothes?
ReplyDelete*sigh That is why I pointed that website out. That point is point one of that skeptic, I thought you got that info from there. It was number one.
I did address it already though. The shroud is indeed mentioned many times in the Bible. Maybe the image was not quite that apparent until time passed. When found it was hidden for centuries. Too valuable to write about, or at least that is what I surmise.
if it isn't from the 14th century, why do multiple tests say it's about that age?
ReplyDeleteDan
ReplyDeleteFAIL You have not shown evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it has been identically reproduced, that it is repeatable, and verified.
Testable, repeatable, and verifiable. You know, science. You have failed thus far to show the evidence. "hey, a website said it" is NOT evidence.
As usual, the point sails WAY over your head. The website DETAILS the experiment that WAS done.
What are you looking for, a book? Well, you've never read where the guy said mentioned that it was published here:
Books and Culture, (March/April, 2005)
The shroud is indeed mentioned many times in the Bible. Maybe the image was not quite that apparent until time passed.
Right...sure. "not quite that apparent". Don't you think your god would have thought to have made that image apparent right away, so that there'd be an actual biblical basis for this shroud fetish you believers have?
Then of course, there's still the blood/ochre comparisons...what was found on the shroud (in the link from my last comment) was ochre, not blood as mentioned in my previous post.
That's talked about a bit more here, where they also talk about that Ray Rogers guy.
It's a reply to the guy (Ray Rogers) that was mentioned in the article that Dan linked to in his OP, about how the new dating of the shroud is supposed to show that it's actually from around the time of christ.
Anyway, Dan. Start reading from:
At the beginning of his paper, Rogers states that the early 14th century radiocarbon date "
and also after the heading Rogers' Analytical Methods: Deception and Illogic
Dan, this is a serious question: is this the only "empirical, falsifiable, evidence for a supernatural event"?
ReplyDeleteI mean, surely if supernatural events do occur we would have numerous examples we would all be aware of?
The examples of the "natural" world and events are innumerable. Wouldnt examples of the "supernatural" also be innumerable?
Which surely lends credence to the view that the Shroud of Turin is entirely explainable. Even if you are correct when you claim science hasn't yet explained it (obviously others here disagree with you on that).
It is surely reasonable to assume that in a world which appears to be almost entirely made up of "natural" phenomena, the odd unexplained phenomenon or event is simply ..... unexplained, rather than supernatural.
Thats my entirely pragmatic viewpoint anyway.
Dan, do you know anything about relics? They were big business in the Middle Ages. Passion nails, pieces of the True Cross, garments worn by various saints, bones (sometimes even the entire head, the way the head of St. Thomas Aquinas was removed by the monks of the abbey at Fossanova, in Italy), even the skin of Saint Bartholomew (who was martyred by being flayed).
ReplyDeleteAs Saint Jerome said "We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are" (Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907).
Every pilgrim wanted to bring home some sort of relic when he took a pilgrimage (sort of a holy souvenir), and where there's a market, there will always be somebody to fill it.
Also, one of the primary ways that a nobleman could get in good with the church was to build a new church; on top of which, every good-sized estate had a chapel. And the "best" altars were built with a relic inside it.
In fact, if you read that last link, you'll note the statement "such relics should be of a size sufficient for them to be recognized as parts of human bodies; hence excessively small relics of one or more saints must not be placed beneath the altar."
That was because animal bones were often sold as finger bones or bone fragments from various saints. Properly "aged" (lightly stained, sometimes tumbled in a barrel with sand and small rocks - kind of a primitive sandblasting), one bit of bone looks a lot like another.
But the bigger the relic, the more it was worth. And some enterprising artist in the 14th century decided to make a mint with this one.
Although the church frowned on it, it was big business back then.
Oh, and you still haven't explained the odd proportions of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteYou have the picture there right at the top of the article. Now think about it for just a second.
Imagine folding it over so the front is on top of the back.
There was supposed to be a body inside this, right? So, did Jesus' head come to a point? Look at the pattern painted there, and try to imagine a head inside it.
I don't recall the bible mentioning that, after the torture and the crucifixion, Jesus was run over by a steam roller like in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Although admittedly, that might explain how he snuck out of the cave later without moving the boulder...
My God!! I think you've done it! You've developed a whole new chapter in the annals of canonical law! Jesus was two-dimensional! It explains EVERYTHING!!
(I'm sorry, am I mocking? Publius says I mock too much...)
Oranges,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, this is a serious question: is this the only "empirical, falsifiable, evidence for a supernatural event"?
Nope, just one that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable today.
>>I mean, surely if supernatural events do occur we would have numerous examples we would all be aware of?
Sure, do you want some verses?
>>The examples of the "natural" world and events are innumerable. Wouldnt examples of the "supernatural" also be innumerable?
How so? How do you come to that conclusion?
>>Which surely lends credence to the view that the Shroud of Turin is entirely explainable.
Yes it is. It is empirical, falsifiable, evidence.
>>Even if you are correct when you claim science hasn't yet explained it (obviously others here disagree with you on that).
They disagree because someone that is apparently against God searches for ways to discredit the actual science that is out there. That is not science, that is gripes and complaints. Objective Science that discredits the Shroud, from what I read, is not available.
Marketing for books? Yes. Skepticism? Yes. (Apples and Oranges)
Objective Science peer reviewed that reveals evidence of the Shroud's fraud? Nope, not one bit. Please prove me wrong.
Cynic,
ReplyDelete>>That was because animal bones were often sold as finger bones or bone fragments from various saints. Properly "aged" (lightly stained, sometimes tumbled in a barrel with sand and small rocks - kind of a primitive sandblasting), one bit of bone looks a lot like another.
So is that where evolutionists got that idea from. (Lucy, etc.), anyway moving on. I am still listening.
>>Although the church frowned on it, it was big business back then.
That might be the case. It sure makes sense. Objective science should be able to show evidence for that postulation. Anything?
Named Cynic,
ReplyDelete>>There was supposed to be a body inside this, right? So, did Jesus' head come to a point? Look at the pattern painted there, and try to imagine a head inside it.
Excellent point!! Now see this is a mere example of the objective evidence that I am searching for. Good job, moving on.
>>I don't recall the [B]ible mentioning that, after the torture and the crucifixion, Jesus was run over by a steam roller like in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Well after reading the Bible, I do not recall mention of a steam roller but that is not to say it didn't happen. Lets examine the evidence for the prediction that you have made:
So, did Jesus' head come to a point? Look at the pattern painted there, and try to imagine a head inside it.
Confirming Evidence:
Yes, lets do that. Let's peer review your findings. It appears to be a stain, of sorts, that indeed touches the top of the head of the next head image. You just may be on to something...
But wait. Lets verify this hypothesis by measuring the head distance starting from the shoulders. A simple calculation that will determine the head location and size.
Tools: *Rattle Tattle Children's ruler. LCD 3090WQXi
Rough estimates, we get around 1 1/2 inches from the top of the head to the chin. (front view)
Verified. Now,
Measurement from the shoulder to the top of the head is roughly around 1 1/4 inches. (front view)
Great. Calculated and verified.
Now, lets move to the rear image to determine the location of the head in reference to the shoulders, using the stain image for measurements.
We get a head, measured from the shoulder, that exceeds 2 inches (2 1/8). Uh oh!
The evolutionists would determine this to be an inconclusive result but the rest of us rational, logical people would see a negative result to the hypothesis.
Either his head in two different dimensional measurements from the respective front and back. Or, this is merely a stain that leaked to show the appearance of the rear head to be larger.
Findings. The extra 1/2 inch, to 3/4 inch, is a stain not the top of the head.
We conclude based on the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that your hypothesis is:
FAIL!, Epic, Fuzzy, Furry, Fail! Nanny nanny boo boo, big steaming fail!!!
(I'm sorry, am I mocking? Others say I mock too much also...)
That might be the case. It sure makes sense. Objective science should be able to show evidence for that postulation. Anything?
ReplyDeleteYes. You've already been shown it. Tests showing that the "blood" was ochre dye. Refutations of the pseudoscience that said that 16th century fibers were invisibly woven into the untouched parts of the Shroud, fooling the tests into thinking it was 14th century fiber. The fact (which you have yet to address) that Jesus would have to have been a cardboard cutout for that impression to have been left by him.
And the negative evidence: no mention of the Shroud in the bible in its current form. In fact, John 19:38-40 refers to strips of linen used by Joseph of Arimathea and John 20:6-7 states that Peter found multiple pieces of burial cloth after the tomb was found open, strips of linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head.
Pieces of the burial cloths of Jesus are claimed by at least four churches in France and three in Italy, but none has gathered as much religious following as the Shroud of Turin.
In fact, the Catholic church has never claimed that it is authentic. As Pope John Paul II put it, "Since we're not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can't pronounce itself on such questions."
Why do you refuse to accept reality? I know you'd like to have some kind of "evidence," but this really ain't it, chief.
See, you went and addressed the proprotions (badly) while I was posting.
ReplyDeleteSee, you left out one crucial measurement. The "depth" of the head. Back to front.
See, if you had the Shroud in front of you (and it wasn't so stiff and crumbly that it was about to fall to shreds any second), you could fold it along a seam between the front and back views of the head, and the two would correspond almost exactly.
However, take somebody with an approximately-similar sized head, and try to put this cloth over his head, as a mask of sorts. (And let's say our victim suffers from male pattern baldness, just for fun.)
The Shroud's eyes would be right about the termination point of his forehead. The Shroud's nose would be hitting just above his eyes, and the Shroud's mouth would, at best, be just above his nose.
If you try to adjust it forward to match your victim's face, the back of the Shroud's head would cover his bald spot, and the rear image of the shoulders would start slightly above his ears.
Because the artist painted the Shroud without using the proper proportions. And you know what that means.
FAIL!, Epic, Fuzzy, Furry, Fail! Nanny nanny boo boo, big steaming fail!!!
As you said, your "evidence" is entirely falsifiable. Because that's exactly what it is.
Falsified.
Cynic (indeed),
ReplyDelete>>Because the artist painted the Shroud without using the proper proportions. And you know what that means.
O'Rly?
I remeasured and get over 3 inches between the two one inch heads. Go ahead, do the math.
Now, if his head was a perfect sphere, we take 4 pi x r2 (surface area of a sphere)
length x width = circumference x diameter
C = 2 pi x r and d = 2 r
C x d = 4 pi x r2 = surface area
There is plenty of wiggle room for the head to fit within that area.
Just looking at it visually is noticeable and workable.
Falsifiable but certainly not falsified.
Remeasured again and can conservatively get 3 1/2 to 3 3/4 inches between the shoulder of the front image to the rear shoulder of the rear image.
ReplyDeleteAm I wrong...anyone?
Image appears very, very proportional.
Rationally and logically, you have yet to make a case. Please try again, if you must.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"They disagree because someone that is apparently against God searches for ways to discredit the actual science that is out there."
Oh, the irony.
Hey Dan: Maybe after the Face of Jesus program, The History Channel will run some of their aliens/Bigfoot/Nostradamus shows, cause those things are all real, too.
ReplyDelete* yawn *
ReplyDeleteOK, so obviously the proportional difficulty, apparent to the naked eye, aren't enough for you.
How about word from the Catholics? It's their relic (even if they are consigned to hell). Would that make you happy?
The cloth now at Turin can be clearly traced back to the Lirey in the Diocese of Troyes, where we first hear of it about the year 1360. In 1453 it was at Chambéry in Savoy, and there in 1532 it narrowly escaped being consumed by a fire which by charring the corners of the folds has left a uniform series of marks on either side of the image...
Plausible as this contention appeared, a most serious historical difficulty had meanwhile been brought to light. Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed. Moreover, the grave suspicion thus thrown upon the relic is immensely strengthened by the fact that no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud or its coming to Lirey.
How much evidence do you really need before you'll accept that this is a forgery? I'm just curious? Will you keep at this until Jesus himself descends from the heavens to bat you on the back of the head and tell you that you're being a dumbass? (Because, to be honest, if I saw that, I'd jump over to your side of the argument.)
(The argument about the existence of Jesus, not on the Shroud, which is pretty obviously a forgery.)
Chasong,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't read your blog if you paid me.
Anyone who is convinced that the world is going to end according to bible prophecy is nuts and I don't want people like that any where near power. You've already decided how he world will end and will do anything to see it happen that way.
You are crazy.
I am thankful that people like you and Dan are out there on the fringes and not in any positions of power.
Rufus,
ReplyDeleteHistory Channel Touché, but you do understand that was a fine example of an ad hominem fallacy.
Granted, there may be far fetched shows on cable, just look at the "God" channel or TBN (Are you kidding me?), so we have to use our logic and reason to determine what is fake and what is real. Even if I agree with you, based on the evidence. Are you claiming, insinuating, that it is impossible that big foot, or UFOs, exists? Do those subjects warrant a similar link to the Shroud?
Nope. The evidence speaks for itself.
We certainly should not allow stifling of ideas, but we certainly should examine the evidence of those hypotheses.
In reflection and after reading something written from AIG:
ReplyDeleteLike the Rich Man (Luke 16:27-31) we have God's Word. Anyone not prepared to believe God's Word won't be persuaded even if a dead person came to warn them.
Matthew 28 explains that the chief priests had money given to the soldiers so they would report the body of Jesus was stolen instead. Jesus had obviously risen from the dead, and they refused to believe!
Noah's Ark was a sign to the pre-flood world that God judges sin and that in His grace He provides a way to escape from judgment. All through scripture, God gave the Israelites sign after sign and they rejected His Word.
So no matter what evidence appears it will be rejected by the Atheists, just like the many people did throughout the Bible. God save them all.
Definitely a Cynic,
ReplyDelete>>OK, so obviously the proportional difficulty, apparent to the naked eye, aren't enough for you.
OK, so obviously the proportional measurements, apparent to the naked eye and evidenced mathematically, aren't enough for you.
Logic and reason? How about some quotes from Martin Luther;
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther
The damned whore, Reason
The following quotes concerning the evil of human reason are from the father of Christian Protestantism, Martin Luther:
"Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft." (The damned whore, Reason).
"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."
Martin Luther, quoted by Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1963), p. 75
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."
"To be a Christian, you must "pluck out the eye of reason.""
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
Martin Luther, "Works," Volume 22, c. 1543
"We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist."
Martin Luther, "Lectures on Genesis"
chasong
ReplyDeleteThere’s been talk of guillotines being imported into the United States and other scary bits of news.
Huh? What evidence do you have for that?
And Dan, it seems you've been bleating about "body proportions" and whatnot, yet you've said nothing about the fact that when examined, the shroud had ochre paint, not blood on it.
The fact that it's bloody paint kind of makes what you've arguing about irrelevent.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Anyone not prepared to believe God's Word won't be persuaded even if a dead person came to warn them."
A couple problems with that claim. First, you haven't established that any of this is more than the writing of men. Second, the claim of "nothing will convince you" is common to cons. It's why cults admonish their followers not to listen to outsiders. Someone who came back from the dead (such that I could confirm it, not "ooh, bible says someone came back from the dead") could be a useful witness to what is beyond the grave. But we don't have that.
"Matthew 28 explains that the chief priests had money given to the soldiers so they would report the body of Jesus was stolen instead. Jesus had obviously risen from the dead, and they refused to believe!"
And the other gospels make no mention of those soldiers even existing. It seems it would be an important point. This suggests that whoever wrote "Matthew" probably made it up.
If the fabric was across the face of jesus, the face would appear wide and out of proportion. This is the easiest way to disprove the Shroud.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEven after proving that the shroud has actual blood on it and is from the first century, there is no way to prove absolutely that it was used in the actual crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, if there was such an event. Jesus was not the only person to ever have (allegedly) been crucified, and certainly was not the only person with type AB blood. Blood on cloth certainly does not prove that anything supernatural has occurred, or even lends support as evidence that it has occurred.
ReplyDeleteUnless someone can produce Jesus's DNA and can compare it to that in the blood on the cloth, there's no way to definitively connect the biblical character with the artifact. Any other scenarios where one might be inclined to believe these claims?