TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2022 8:30 am
By using the crafty term 'extranatural', you are trying to equate the supernatural (miracles) with natural (physical) explanations that haven't been worked out yet. One is science and the other is magic. That is not my special pleading but your equivocation.
I'm using the terms supernatural, extranatural, and non-natural synonymously, so there's no equivocation. These are things that are not natural and not empirically detectable. As for what is natural, that would be things in our 3 dimensional world.
Science has a method of saying 'we don't know' until the evidence turns up.
Actually, many of the things we've covered in this thread science does not know. And if I propose anything that supports the Bible, then skeptics automatically discount it as a possible answer. Also, I have rarely invoked a supernatural explanation so far. For instance, a white hole theory to explain extreme red shifting is not a supernatural explanation. Even with the global flood to account for the sedimentary strata, no supernatural cause was invoked. So, there is more at play than simply saying "we don't know" until a viable naturalistic explanation is proposed.
The religion side simply posits a miracle, There is no explanation, no mechanism. It is just a faith claim. Miracles and physics are not the same and to to pretend that they are is equivocation. To say that one does not equate to the other as an explanation is not special pleading.
Dark energy and dark matter are not physics. They are totally unknown and ad hoc explanations with no idea what they are or how they work.
If there's no logic or evidence to support a claim, then it would be a "faith" claim. But, if there's evidence and logic to support a claim, I'd say it's more of a "philosophical" claim. Faith implies there's no rational basis to justify the claim. Whereas a philosophical claim can be justified by rational logic.
The burning like the x -ray effect should apply all over the body. Are you suggesting that the effect was directed to particular parts of the body? Explain why. (hint 'God had his good reasons'will not do).
As I present additional observations of the shroud, the theory as to explain the observations will make more sense. I think we should all be in agreement that this is how science works. We gather as much data as possible and then come up with a theory that best explains all the data.
I see you already picked one. Or not.
I picked his main argument, which I've revealed is fallacious.
I'll pick another thing he repeated says:
In 1978 the Vatican allowed a group of scientists called STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) — most of who were deeply religious — to examine the shroud.
That said, it's unfortunate that almost all of those that made up this group were deeply religious, and many were not specialised in the field they investigated. The group consisted of 40 US scientists, made up of 39 devout believers and 1 agnostic. The makeup of this group was stacked and very biased towards authenticating the shroud, and therefore their claims must be taken with an extremely large grain of salt.
Unfortunately almost all of these scientists were deeply religious, many were not specialised in the field they investigated and they were actively trying to prove its authenticity.
'Unfortunately, almost all of these were religious believers, most of them were Roman Catholics',
He repeatedly attacks the STURP team because they were "deeply religious". This would be the ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't matter what is one's faith to show veracity of an argument, but the evidence. Also, does he even know what religion all the STURP team members are, let alone being "devout" believers? If so, I'd like to know because I cannot find that information anywhere. Yes, there are several Catholics on the STURP team, but that does not automatically mean they are incompetent.
mcCrones dissent about the chemistry of the blood got him sidelined by the STURP team who presented findings that obviously please the believers. Not saying more than that, but I await validation of work from experts that get together to publish a book.
I think we'll need to have a major section discussing McCrone's findings as well.
Apart from the medieval C14 date, the best argument, is the one that turned me from an original acceptance of the shroud, was that it is not wrap around.
Yes, I agree the image is not a wrap around image. But that does not demonstrate it is a fake.
but then indeed, the fingers are too long, x - ray or not. what do you think?
X-ray effect easily explains the fingers being too long.
But the stuff above while looks convincingly sciencey, is just one team's conclusions.
It is not just "one" team's conclusions. It is from the STURP team, which is the only group of scientists that have physically examined the entire shroud.
I'm inclined to say paint rather than blood as blood
You'll have to provide evidence that it is paint. As far as I've read, no scientist, including McCrone, has claimed all the blood stains on the shroud are a result of paint.
I don't even have access to the shroud, never mind not being a chemist.
You made the claim "I'm inclined to say paint rather than blood." So, if you make the claim, then I can ask you to back up the claim. Just provide evidence from any paper, journal, photograph, etc to support it was all painted.
Of course, I think it is an interesting subject and I can see why it convinces you and many others.
It is a very interesting subject. As a matter of fact, the more I'm studying this, the more I'm convinced we could go forever on this subject. Just taking a look at the shroud.com
website and it'll take forever to read all the material on that site.