|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Shroud of Turin
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Zorro Point being. Reality is largely based on perception not truth. There are some things that we can not conceive of. If you read the article about the Italian scientific examination the causality of the image. Having been produced by an intense UV laser that is currently beyond our availability to produce. That is compelling evidence. Why would they conclude that? Sure some believers have muddied the water. I did not source them. There are many people of science with no ties to the faith that have contributed to the evidence that I have presented. All I can do I present Evidences that support my conclusions. I can not control nor wish to his that evidence is taken. I look forward to seeing the evidince that supports your conclusions. Unless of course you feel no need to provide it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
zorroloco 20-Sep-22, 07:02 And the new dating method that I had previously posted? And this... article from USA Today. www.usatoday.com All evidence that contradict what you just posted. Both can not be true. So which is it? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Continued anthologywoods.com There are no other examples because no one ever saves a burial cloth. Especially the Jewish community who were instructed to burn them. So it is no small wonder that no other examples exist. The question is why this one? We have the one example. |
|||||||||||||||
|
But, I'll grant you it could be from Jesus' time. Although I doubt it. It could be Jesus' burial shroud. I doubt it. Thing is, so what? I mean it has archaeological significance if authentic. For this argument, I'll grant you it was Jesus' burial shroud (not that I believe it, but we're not going to be able to determine it's authenticity no matter how much we argue, bicker and whatever other negative words Thumper uses for friendly discussion). So. I'll cede you, for this discussion, the shroud was used to cover Jesus after he died. So... how does it provide any proof or evidence of Christ's being resurrected from the dead? Or anything else unnatural? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Apatzer |
|||||||||||||||
|
This is a 7-minute video clip from the Discovery Channel where physicists talk about the Shroud. youtu.be |
|||||||||||||||
|
Inability to recreate Ergo Jesus was the son of God and was resurrected from the dead! How could it be any clearer!! |
|||||||||||||||
|
thumper www.shroud.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
You believe the theory of evolution when the only evidence of one species turning into another species is a handful of alleged and disputed transitional fossils. There’s far more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than exists for the Theory of Evolution. |
|||||||||||||||
|
@apatzer Could you say what the conclusion was of your 09:01 post? Hadn’t heard of the Sudarium of Oviedo before. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
@apatzer I’m mostly interested in whether the Sudarium of Oviedo covered Jesus Christ’s head at the time of His Resurrection and, if so, if it has the same unexplainable properties as the Shroud. If the Sudarium of Oviedo didn’t cover His head at the time of His Resurrection, it’s obviously still a very important relic if genuine, as it appears from that paper to be. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Zorroloco "So... how does it provide any proof or evidence of Christ's being resurrected from the dead? Or anything else unnatural?" ~Z 1. Analogical Evidence, By drawing parallels between all of the testimony given by eyewitnesses. While no one that we know of witnessed the resurrection first hand. They came to the conclusion based on the fact that Jesus interacted with them in person. Multiple accounts that can be referenced with parallels to one another. While not the best evidence in the world added with the other evidence it gives credibility to the testimony. 2. Anecdotal Evidence, along side the testimony given forth in the gospels there are several historians ( Mostly Roman) that make documented mention of the event. 3. Character Evidence, The moral character of those who gave testimony needs to be also considered. 4. Circumstantial Evidence, In the form of all of the above plus you had a group of people ( the disciples ) who all fled in fear for their lives at the time of Jesuses arrest. Went into hiding. Yet after they were supposedly visited by Jesus. Every one of them went to the streets to proclaim the good news and all of them save for one ( John who was give charge to be a son to Mary) Gave their lives and they knew it... that they would die. yet persisted anyway. there is a lot more circumstantial evidence. 5. Demonstrative Evidence, that all of the parties existed. Pilate, Jesus, the Jewish council. 6. Documentary Evidence, In the form of the gospel accounts and accounts by several historians. Testimonial Evidence, Aforementioned What I think you are looking for is called Direct evidence which is the most powerful type of evidence and the hardest for anyone to produce. I also believe the shroud to be forensic evidence, how the image was created, why it exists at all. etc I do believe the image is directly linked to the event called a resurrections. It is not supernatural it simply goes well beyond our understanding in the same way that the SR71 black hawk goes beyond the understanding of a Neanderthal. When taken as a whole all of the compiled evidence points to the resurrection as having been more likely to have occurred than not. It is the best hypotheses given the information we have to work with. Also I see you moved the goal post to include the 1100's to explain away the Hungarian manuscript. The 1988 carbon dating results were as follows... "In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390 AD, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s and is much later than the burial of Jesus in 30 or 33 AD." Which is well after the date of the manuscript, the dates you moved are not an accurate portrayal of the carbon dating results and are not in line with the truth. Sorry but that is how it is. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz “When taken as a whole all of the compiled evidence points to the resurrection as having been more likely to have occurred than not.” Not so. None of that circumstantial evidence is enough to overcome one painful fact. No resurrection from the dead has ever been verified. Therefore the evidence needed to overcome such a glaring and obvious flaw in the resurrection theory must be direct. Anything else is wishful thinking and not supportive of a resurrection. |
|||||||||||||||
|
To be clear It’s why Bob and Patz and MoOne and Josh and other believers are friends if mine. What I won’t tolerate are those trying to make America a Christian nation and excluding Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Muslims, Animists, LGBTQ, Hindus and others from equal ownership of the country. The efforts to codify Christian dogma in our legal system is unAmerican and unChristian. I’ll fight you guys on that. |
|||||||||||||||
|
To you it’s a myth. To me the existence of God and Resurrection of Jesus Christ are reality. Some people don’t believe and never will because they won’t humble themselves, acknowledge (even only internally) that God may exist, and sincerely ask God to reveal Himself to them. <<It’s why Bob and Patz and MoOne and Josh and other believers are friends if mine.>> Can you honestly say you have any friends who are creationists? Because I think the theory of evolution is more than a scientific theory for a lot of evolutionists. <<What I won’t tolerate are those trying to make America a Christian nation and excluding Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Muslims, Animists, LGBTQ, Hindus and others from equal ownership of the country.>> How are they doing that? How are Christians trying to make America “a Christian nation” and exclude others? Can you offer any examples? <<The efforts to codify Christian dogma in our legal system is unAmerican and unChristian.>> What are those efforts? <<I’ll fight you guys on that.>> As well you should, obviously through legal means. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Sep-22, 10:10 |
Vic I have several such friends, in these clubs - at least Bob and Apatzer - come to my mind as they believe that God is the creator. Your talking about creator/creationist can be very misleading as it only entails a special minority fraction of Christians (and Muslims) who do not accept the principles of evolution theory. |
|||||||||||||||
|
@Stalhandske And I think the number of people who do not believe the theory of evolution is significant, at least in the United States, and not all of them believe in God. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew I have one. Les. An old high school buddy. A trumpie. We've had a few fallings out but always agreed to stay friends. We text and speak regularly. But other than him, no. I have a limited amount of time to spend with friends, and choose to allocate that time to friends who are educated, either formally or self. But the kind of self-delusion it takes to say "there's more evidence for the resurrection than for evolution," is a deal breaker for me. Examples of Christian imposition into the public shere.... just off the top of my head... What book is in the courtroom to swear on? Although you have a choice, or can simply affirm, the default is swearing an oath "to God" with a hand on the Bible. Most people seem to assume that it's required. However, it's not. You have a right to simply "affirm" that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No gods, Bibles, or anything else religious need to be involved. But what is the default? What is the only religious holiday that's a national holiday? What about the many attempts by Christian groups to get creationism taught in biology as a competing theory to evolution in public schools? Why is monogamy legal but not polygamy? The vociferous attempts to outlaw abortion are based largely on Christian dogma. What about the football coach praying publicly on the field after games. The district believed it was conveying a message from the school, and made him stop. The SCOTUS overruled, calling it free speech. On the school grounds, while being paid, and while mentoring dozens of kids, in front of an audience, he prays. Can't do it privately? How is that not an imposition of his faith? What day do government offices and liquor stores close? i.e. blue laws. Here's a Wiki link detailing all the Blue laws in the US. en.wikipedia.org. Trying to pretend these efforts don't exist is simply silly. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Sep-22, 10:55 |
Vic I think you are easily misunderstood here, too. This is because of your strict definition of 'theory of evolution' to follows preciesly what Darwin taught. At lest this is the impression I have got from the recent discussions. |
|||||||||||||||
|
A Darwinian evolution denier and a supporter of Trump? Wow. That’s a two-fer of annoyance for you. <<But other than him, no. I have a limited amount of time to spend with friends, and choose to allocate that time to friends who are educated, either formally or self.>> I think you generalize far too much. Do you know how many educated people don’t believe the theory of evolution? <<But the kind of self-delusion it takes to say "there's more evidence for the resurrection than for evolution," is a deal breaker for me.>> If you think a lot of evidence exists for one species turning into another species, I think you’re just mistaken and conflating changes within a species with one species turning into another species. Darwin did the same thing: He observed changes within a species and then made the wild and completely unsupported leap to thinking that meant one species turned into another species. The ensuing 150 years, with revelations of how complex cells and DNA are, with discoveries (and non discoveries) in the fossil record that contradict his theory, have not been kind to his theory. I have friends who are evolutionists and I have no problem with them. Don’t you think the fact you have only one friend who doesn’t believe Darwinian evolution and prefer not to spend time with deniers of Darwin’s theory mean the theory of evolution is more than a scientific theory to you? |
|||||||||||||||
|
What book is in the courtroom to swear on? Although you have a choice, or can simply affirm, the default is swearing an oath "to God" with a hand on the Bible. Most people seem to assume that it's required. However, it's not. You have a right to simply "affirm" that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No gods, Bibles, or anything else religious need to be involved. But what is the default?>> That’s been going on for decades, if not centuries. That’s hardly a current effort. <<What is the only religious holiday that's a national holiday?>> I don’t know. Christmas? If I’m right, that too is not a current effort. And I know some Jewish holidays are recognized at the local level because school boards don’t have schools open on those days. But Christmas has become very secularized and is much, much more about gift giving and gift receiving than Jesus Christ’s birth. <<What about the many attempts by Christian groups to get creationism taught in biology as a competing theory to evolution in public schools?>> I’m not aware of how widespread those efforts are and I wouldn’t support them. What I would and do support is including the flaws and criticisms of Darwinian evolution in any curriculum on the subject. <<Why is monogamy legal but not polygamy?>> To avoid social unrest? But again, this is not a current effort to “Christianize” America. Monogamy (and a prohibition on polygamy) has existed for centuries. <<The vociferous attempts to outlaw abortion are based largely on Christian dogma.>> As far as I know, abortion isn’t mentioned in the New Testament and some atheists think the Old Testament doesn’t have a problem with abortion. I think people who are pro-life are pro-life because we don’t know when life begins. <<What about the football coach praying publicly on the field after games. The district believed it was conveying a message from the school, and made him stop. The SCOTUS overruled, calling it free speech. On the school grounds, while being paid, and while mentoring dozens of kids, in front of an audience, he prays. Can't do it privately? How is that not an imposition of his faith?>> I think it’d be an imposition of his faith if he was encouraging or requiring other people to pray. Him simply praying and being joined by other believers is, in my opinion, not an imposition. <<What day do government offices and liquor stores close? i.e. blue laws. Here's a Wiki link detailing all the Blue laws in the US. en.wikipedia.org.>> Again, this is not a current effort. If anything, the trend is going in the opposite direction. I know many stores, including liquor stores, that are open on Sunday. <<Trying to pretend these efforts don't exist is simply silly.>> I think the vast majority you cited aren’t current efforts. |
|||||||||||||||
|
The theory of evolution, as I’m defining it on here (and anywhere else,) is the idea that one species of animal turned into another species of animal. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew You talk like you think a species wakes up one morning and turned from a koala into a whale. 'Turn into' is not what any scientist would say. small changes over a vast period of time add up to a descendant quite unlike the antecedent.... a tiny horselike thing, for example, slowly increases in size, molars adapt to the rigors of a new diet brought about by changing climate, four toes merged into three, and than a hoof to accommodate galloping over the open range. Whoa.... a horse.... It fits the fossil evidence, and is backed by genetics, embryology and morphology (if you mention Hoeckle, you lose). It also make common sense... we see things changing all the time. Look, by your own admission, you admit we've seen small changes...why do you think they suddenly stop? Doesn't it make sense after tens or hundreds of millions of years, those change will give you something very different? Play a mind experiment. Take an animal you know. Now make a small change. Continue to do that every hundred years (we can see changes happening in just a few generations, so I'm being conservative) for 70 million years. Realize that every change you make is also continuing to change - you've admitted this. After even 10,000,000 years (i.e. 10,000 changes, how similar is the original to the new critter. Can they mate? Do they even resemble each other? Is their DNA exactly the same? As an opposing theory, you offer, God did it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I’ll post more on this later, because I think it’s been shown that one species remains as is. That is, though it may undergo changes it doesn’t become a new species. I remember reading about the evidence supporting that position but can’t recall it off the top of my head and don’t have time right now to find it on a search engine. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Lines |
|||||||||||||||
|
On creation Take a mustard seed. Everything it needs to become one of the largest garden plants (from one of the most tiny of seeds) Is contained within that seed. Same holds true for the Universe. I have heard several scientists say everything that ever was, everything that is and everything that will be. Was contained within the singularity. In this way the singularity was like a seed. The smallest of seeds yet the largest of things. It is simple, elegant and beautiful and we will never understand all of it. It is written that God created man from the dust of the earth. Well the dust of the earth was once star dust. It all leads back to the singularity. It was explained to us in the most simple of terms. We were not told how, or when. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
