Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3
From	Message
pawntificator 10-Jan-25, 06:01	Mel goes into the carbon dating too. He's having this interview in Austin while his house is probably burning down.
victoriasas 10-Jan-25, 06:22	I haven’t seen any of Mel Gibson’s movies (the ones he directed) but I’ve heard at least one of them was very graphic in its depiction of Jesus Christ’s scourging and crucifixion. Saw a comment under a video I watched last night that questioned (quite sarcastically) how Jesus’ physical death by scourging and crucifixion could absolve anyone of his or her sins. But a substitutionary blood sacrifice was always required for the forgiveness of sins – going all the way back to when God gave the law to the children of Israel. The Jews weren’t sacrificing animals in the Temple for any other reason.
apatzer 10-Jan-25, 06:50	Vic , 10-Jan-25, 05:02 The Catholic Church and others have done great damage to Christianity (I'm not saying that they didn't do anything good) and my comments here are in regards to your post dated in the title bar. So , how did they do damage? Mostly it is psychological and historical damage along with building up biases in non believers against them and by extension Christianity. They did so by being disobedient to the gospel and executing people for heresy. Also they persecuted some notable scientific minds like Galileo Copernicus and Bruno. Over theological differences. In essence of you didn't believe as they did (nowhere in the Bible does it say to Earth the Sun revolves around the Earth) they would put a person on trial. Evidence was meaningless. It was Thier way or the highway. So that has lead to a whole lot of speculation, IE people had to had science for fear of persecution, and that is why some great scientists were Christian out of fear. Etc and many other suppositions that may or may not be true. It also spurned backlash from science in the form of prejudiced and biases. That are subconscious and automatic. So unfortunately, I think a few sought revenge in any way they could deliver it. Which is my supposition.
apatzer 10-Jan-25, 06:56	Deleted by apatzer on 10-Jan-25, 06:56.
apatzer 10-Jan-25, 06:56	Vic, my opinion Another thing I want to share. I was driving home yesterday and drove past the church and the sign said( not literally I just don't want to single them out) "insert any denomination' and a couple more words after that. And I thought here you had a beautiful transparent Crystal clear piece of glass and man puts his dirty handprints and marks all over it in one way or another. "Let us create man in our image and likeness" and man has been trying to create God in our image and likeness ever since
victoriasas 10-Jan-25, 07:33	@apatzer Thanks for your post and I agree that the Catholic church has damaged Christianity for the reasons you cited and, from a more modern perspective, not only the sexual abuse of kids by priests but the way the Catholic church handled those accusations (transferring the suspected priest to another diocese instead of calling the police, which, btw, is what parents should also have done.) But I don’t think science is at all incompatible with Christianity. I remember one great scientist who was a believer said he approached his work as a scientist by acknowledging God’s existence and in asking how God did it. But the fallacy a lot of atheists put forward is that God is just an explanation for difficult questions about creation and that once someone says “God did it,” that somehow closes the door to further inquiry. But it really doesn’t. Because saying “God did it” doesn’t answer the question, “How did God do it?” I believe great scientists before Darwin were genuine believers. I don’t think a scientist must be an atheist or agnostic to practice legitimate science. Just don’t bring your belief in God into your science. The crucial difference, imo, is that Darwin (and others) brought their atheism into science (yes, Darwin was an atheist before he published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859) – that is, Darwin insisted on a naturalistic explanation for the origin of species when evidence didn’t warrant it. And Darwin himself knew that, which is why he described his work as “grievously hypothetical” and why he never published his promised book of evidence to support his theory of molecules-to-man evolution. This is from a post I made in the Multiverse Chess Club… <<“Every criticism from a good man is of value to me. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work will be grievously hypothetical, and large parts by no means worthy of being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.” en.m.wikisource.org What Ever Happened to Darwin’s Big Book? Charles Darwin (1809–1882) has become a mythical figure of gigantic proportions. His theory drives a surprising amount of popular discussion. I often hear pundits referring to “evolution” and by that, they always mean Darwinism. It’s as much science as they care to know, in most cases. That fact makes reading Robert F. Shedinger’s Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished (Discovery Institute Press 2024) an unusual experience. Meticulously analyzing Darwin’s and his associates’ massive correspondence, Shedinger, professor of religion at Luther College, quietly blows up the Darwin myth. He shows that — in actual history — Darwin never demonstrated to his colleagues’ satisfaction that natural selection acting on random mutation accounted for the history of life. Contrary to What You Might Hear… Darwin’s colleagues were not concerned about the effect of his theories on religion. Rather, they frequently complained that, “while he made arguments, he provided little evidence and essentially proved nothing.” (p. 159) Spurred by Alfred Russel Wallace’s famous letter outlining a very similar theory, Darwin — to avoid pre-emption — published On the Origin of Species (1859) as an abstract, promising a much longer book supplying the evidence for his thesis. But he never published that longer book, even though it was, Shedinger tells us, three-quarters written by that time. He went on to publish works on orchids and sexual selection instead.>> evolutionnews.org Someone doesn’t have to believe in a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis to be a Christian. But a scientist also doesn’t have to be an atheist to be a scientist. IMO, Darwin is exhibit A in what happens when scientists and naturalists (Darwin was the latter) allow their atheism to dictate their science. When they place more importance on their atheism than on science, they produce theories based on scant evidence and conjecture instead of on facts.
victoriasas 10-Jan-25, 07:49	@apatzer 06:56 When it comes to God’s identity and nature, I go by the Bible because I believe Jesus Christ was God incarnate and I believe His Resurrection happened and validated that He was who He claimed to be. And if that’s validated, then, imo, everything He and His disciples said is validated (not to mention Old Testament prophets predicted centuries earlier when He would be revealed as the Messiah, where He would be born, the healing miracles He would perform and how and why He would die.) In my experience, people who think the Bible is highly metaphorical never explain the metaphors. I’m not saying everything in the Bible should be taken literally, but I don’t think metaphors are anywhere near as numerous as others on GK seem to think. I also (obviously) believe God cannot be fully known, but neither is He a complete mystery, imo. I think a lot about God is revealed in the Bible. And certainly I think His love for humanity and respect for humans’ free will are revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.
valley_forge 10-Jan-25, 08:54	Knowing God Through Faith In Christ Jesus 🙏 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." John 3:16 / "“For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
victoriasas 10-Jan-25, 11:55	Posted elsewhere… <<Quotation “No radiocarbon-dating expert has asserted that the dating is substantially unreliable.[6]“ This was not an attack on the method, but on the suggestion the sample selection and process was unreliable. This was not me attacking you, this was the article emphasizing the opinion of the experts involved in the original analysis, and their opinions in the ensuing decades>> This is simply false, as videos posted earlier in this thread demonstrate… “The Shroud of Turin: Debunking the 1988 Carbon-14 Tests” youtu.be Video is 3:43 Shroud of Turin: Ray Rogers explains why the carbon-14 dates are most certainly wrong (the reweave)” youtu.be Video is 5:39 I don’t know if the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ or not, and it wouldn’t affect my faith either way. The only one on GK who seems certain about whether the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ is a Christ denier and Christ mocker who enjoys trolling Christians. And who once said (and reiterated in the last few months) that the theory of molecules-to-man evolution is “without flaw, chink or blemish and has been that way for 150 years.” No one in his right mind believes that, but this is what happens when atheism (or a bias against Christianity) is considered more important than science.
apatzer 31-Jan-25, 13:23	Bump,
victoriasas 25-Mar-25, 15:22	Interesting… “The shroud of turin - 6 to 8 BILLION watts of light energy.” youtube.com Video is 57 seconds
apatzer 25-Mar-25, 19:40	Vic That was a good short video. I relatively recently learned that magnetism works by exchanging virtual photon's. A photon being a fundamental particle (or quantum) of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation quantum electrodynamics (QED), where the electromagnetic force (including magnetism) arises from the exchange of virtual photons between charged particles. Virtual photons mediate the electromagnetic force, acting as the carrier particles for interactions between charged particles like electrons. These photons are not directly observable but are a mathematical framework to explain force transmission. In magnetism, moving charges (e.g., electrons in atoms) generate magnetic fields, which are ultimately manifestations of these photon exchanges. For example, the magnetic force between two electrons arises from their interaction via virtual photons. our bodies emits photon's all the time. This can be seen in the infrared spectrum in the form of heat. So it would seem that light emanated from every atom in his body. Which makes me wonder if there is even more to that image than we can see or know. Anyways that also gives new meaning to "Let there be Light" it is more that just the Stars turning on.
victoriasas 25-Mar-25, 20:05	What you wrote was mostly over my head, but it appears only an extraordinary (impossible in the First Century) event could have created the image on the Shroud of Turin. I’ve heard what’s mentioned in that YouTube short mentioned in other videos as well. Kind of amazing that the image on the Shroud can’t be explained by scientists nearly 2,000 years later. And apparently the blood on the Shroud is human blood and the blood trails align with accounts of Jesus’ injuries in the Gospels. Some people, though, will never believe. The Pharisees saw the miracles Jesus performed and attributed them to Satan. One guy in this club said the stars could spell out “I am God and I exist” and he still wouldn’t believe. Some hearts are hardened beyond repair, though I have no idea why.
apatzer 26-Mar-25, 11:17	Other interesting facts (Radiation Hypothesis): Researchers like John Jackson propose that a flash of vacuum UV radiation, emitting billions of watts of energy, discolored only the topmost fibers without scorching the cloth, forming the 3D-negative image. This aligns with the image's unique features, such as its presence in non-contact areas and X-ray-like visibility of bones. There is also a hypothesis of vacuum energy creating a burst of energy. For those interested... ... bellatorchristi.com www.magiscenter.com
victoriasas 13-Aug-25, 23:13	Bumping this thread as it contains info about the Shroud of Turin…
valley_forge 14-Aug-25, 09:22	In response to Vic's post @ 3-Aug-25, 23:13 After I went back to the 9 or 10 page I gave up looking and started another thread, no disrespect, okay?
victoriasas 14-Aug-25, 17:34	@VF Didn’t take it that way. Just bumped the original thread for informational purposes.
valley_forge 14-Aug-25, 17:58	In response to Vic's post @ 14-Aug-25, 17:34 "Taking offense" and misunderstandings should be the last thought among mature and intelligent members; Hopefully we may begin considering our relationship along this line sooner than later. Thank you for considering me🙏 by your response!
dmaestro 02-Sep-25, 12:53	Evidence going back to a 1355 account www.newsweek.com suggests the Shroud is a inspirational sacred art relic but not the actual Shroud.
apatzer 02-Sep-25, 13:09	dmaestro Only one glaring problem. The Polish prayer codex that shows the Shroud of Turin is known as the Hungarian Pray Codex (also sometimes referred to as the Pray Manuscript). It is dated between 1192 and 1195 AD. This codex contains an illustration that many scholars believe depicts the Shroud of Turin, with features corresponding to the shroud such as the folded hands without thumbs and the characteristic burn holes known as "poker holes" in an "L" shape. The Pray Codex is significant as it predates the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud, which suggested a date range of 1260 to 1390, thus providing historical evidence for the Shroud's existence before the 13th century.
thumper 02-Sep-25, 13:49	Like I said before, how the image was placed on the shroud answers the question and everything else is just noise... IMO.
apatzer 02-Sep-25, 20:18	en.wikipedia.org this is fairly difficult to dispute. It has never been a secret that several people in the 1300"s called it a fake including a bishop. That is not scientific or historical evidence. It is evidence that someone called it a fake in history.
apatzer 03-Sep-25, 12:03	I'd like to take a moment and reiterate my position. It doesn't matter to me at all, not even a little bit. If the Shroud of Turin is legit or not. What matters to me is the truth. I also agree with Thumpers very good observation/statement about the image itself. Which is the crux of the matter. Prove beyond doubt how it was created and imprinted on the shroud. Everything else is just opinion/noise. The image is uniform in thickness in a negative format (not known until the invention of photography) and is only 2 micron's thick. A human hair is 20 microns thick. No pigment, ink etc or method using those. Would produce a perfect uniform thickness of 2 micron's. It would be even more fantastical if it were a fake. Because such a person would have been on par or greater than Leonardo Davinchi. And what? Did he make one brilliant fake and then stop? No other items with different types of imagery made in a similar way? Sorry but my logic and reason button is going off
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.