nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:12 am
Curved spacetime can be directly observed (eg. the initial eclipse measurements by Eddington in 1919 demonstrated that this is a real, detectable thing, as do observations of gravitational lensing).
I agree that curved spacetime can be a model, but to say it is not just a model but reality is speculative.
They are not proposed as extranatural, but natural (remaining to be confirmed by new observations, experiments and theoretical work).
If they are not detectable, how can they be considered natural? In the case of the multiverse, if it's not even part of our universe, how can that be considered natural also? Or in the case of extra dimensions with string theory, how can that also be considered natural if it's beyond our 3 dimensions?
For people who believe that gods exist, I don't think the option exists for the alternative view ... ie. it isn't subject to new observations and revisions that could lead to gods not existing and remaining in the extranatural realm. This alone would put gods into a very different category than things like dark matter and dark energy.
Yes, I agree they are in different subcategories, but in that they are all non-natural explanations I believe they are all in the same category.
Part of the problem is using theological terms invokes personal preconceived ideas and emotions. When we hear the term "supernatural", it's a loaded term that mixes together our experiences, preconceptions, and personal viewpoint. I'm attempting to remove that emotional aspect of it when I use the term extranatural. And I'm showing that cosmologists do not strictly adhere to using naturalistic explanations. Cosmology is not the only scientific field doing this either. As mentioned above, physicists are also now doing this with string theory.
Aren't you being a bit uncharitable towards scientific hypotheses worked out mathematically? Have not such been worked out from the diameter of the eratrh and the existence or Neptune and Pluto to relativity, Black holes and the Higgs Boson before visual detection validated them. Isn't it a bit short -sighted and dismissive to dismiss them out of hand because we can't 'detect' them? And after all, what doers theism have to put in it's place? Nothing either observational, mathematical or theoretical (fine tuning aside, ceocedo) other than 'if science isn't proven 100 realtime in fron of our eyes, "God" must be the answer'?
No. They are absolutely not in the same category and you have picked a handy term to equivocate them. You are pulling a fallacy so as to pretend that god claims are on a level with scientific hypotheses.
What you believe doesn't matter, what is a demonstrable fallacy does' I explained your fallacy twice at least and you don't or won't listen. That denialism doesn't do you or your case any good.
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.
By picking three synonyms for a blunderbuss term, that does not equat postulating the supernatural miracles and faith -claims with scientific hypotheses. They are quite different things with different levels of credibility (science, high through past performance, the supernatural, low, though not having validated anything). Now,give this fiddle up because it has been blown.
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.
There is evidence to make dark matter a hypothesis to explain an observed effect. That cannot be equated withe a faithclaim such as a god (name you own) doing it with no hypothesis how. The two things - Theist faithclaim and scientific hypothesis are NOT equivalent, you are equivocating in pretending they are,.
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.
Me? 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.
I know how science works - it is not fiddling the evidence to fit the faithclaim. Ok, again you tell me that you will explain later on problems I raise. X ray does indeed explain the fingers looking too long. But as I said, the hand underneath the other does look too long anyway. I asked you what you thought. You didn't. You just stuck to the x-ray effect claim and ignored the problem, not even offering to explain later. The lower arm (looks really like the wrist which would be the natural position) is faint which would make sense for an imaging process from without but not a process from within. What do you say to that? And if that is the wrist, the fingers are too long either way, x- ray effect or not.
-Like i say, it looks good, but the anatomy does mismatch when you look closer.
I am sure you will find a lot of apologetics material dismissing McCrone. You may save yourself the work as I don't care. The point that he dissents is minor, as is the point that the STURP team may have all been believers. The point is, it is one team's findings and the STURP team is One team, isn't it?) and the circumstances of the object require that findings be tested, checked and verified, as they are open to question - that, Mr. Know How Science works is how it is done. I am open to finding that indeed it is a shroud of an actual crucified man. That simply presents a different problem, I want to know, not either debunk or swallow the claim whole.
And well done, you accept that it isn't a wrap around. And, that does not show it is 'fake. But it does show, does it not, that the shroud can hardly have intended for a man they thought was dead, and of course John's Lazarus -bands are straight away in the bin. If it is (at the best) a sheet draped over the body, that suggests that is was temporary, and forget about 100 lb spices. We have already started to see the gospel account of the 'burial' crumble.
That's giving the shroud the best. But you see why I'm talking of a contact print, either with a real body or an (admittedly remarkable) image.
I'm not making a claim about paint. I'm keeping the possibility open. Is it only far fetched possibilities that support faithclaims that are admissible? I already raised a few problems, like the blood images not looking like surface singeing effect but a soaking -in effect (and the thorns - blood looks dodgy enough to suggest painting on) raises the question of it being painted on later with whatever was used, but blood would blacken (whether or not originally pinkish). To this you relied on a claim that the fibres under the serum was not discoloured. That produced more problems. And I have to check those UV images.
It is interesting and possibly better evidence for Jesus crucified than the NT could be, as it debunks the gospels and tells of a man taken out of the tomb after NOT having been buried as dead. I'm open to that one, as it was always what the gospels tell us, if we look deeper than the surface.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER on Sun Jan 01, 2023 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:33 am
Aren't you being a bit uncharitable towards scientific hypotheses worked out mathematically?
Don't think so. I'm not disagreeing with the models (or even the math). I'm disagreeing that models are actual reality.
Even wikipedia states that spacetime is a mathematical model.
In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines inertial space and time manifolds (x,y) with a non-inertial reference frame of space and time (x',t') into a four-dimensional model relating a position (inertial frame of reference) to the field (physics).
Where we see the spacetime fabric being extended beyond a model is proposing that dark energy (which we have no idea what it is) can stretch spacetime as if its an actual entity.
The difference is like using a model airplane to test air flow in a wind tunnel and then saying we can jump on that model airplane and fly to China.
I have no problem with visualizing and explaining the bending of light around objects as modeled by a curvature of a spacetime fabric. But to extend a model to say that a spacetime fabric actually exists is speculation. We see this in the fact that multiple ad hoc explanations need to be added to hold up the idea that spacetime fabric can actually be expanding.
Have not such been worked out from the diameter of the eratrh and the existence or Neptune and Pluto to relativity, Black holes and the Higgs Boson before visual detection validated them. Isn't it a bit short -sighted and dismissive to dismiss them out of hand because we can't 'detect' them?
So, even if we cannot detect something does not rule out its existence?
And after all, what doers theism have to put in it's place?
I'm not suggesting theism replace science or anything else. What I believe is science alone cannot determine truth. Science is one way to truth, but it cannot arrive at all truth. Philosophy is another way to arrive at truth. And theology is also another.
I do not believe science and theology are totally incompatible. I do believe they overlap (unlike Gould's NOMA). And the prime example of this is in the study of the Shroud of Turin which we're doing now.
Interestingly, even Dawkins holds to an overlapping view of science and theology.
Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion is not divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
Nothing either observational, mathematical or theoretical (fine tuning aside, ceocedo) other than 'if science isn't proven 100 realtime in fron of our eyes, "God" must be the answer'?
God is a loaded theological term and probably should be in a separate thread. All I'm saying now is if no natural explanations are viable, then a non-natural explanation can be entertained. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
You are pulling a fallacy so as to pretend that god claims are on a level with scientific hypotheses.
Never claimed that. Where did I say that? Claims using non-natural explanations will be a philosophical claim, not a scientific claim.
What you believe doesn't matter, what is a demonstrable fallacy does' I explained your fallacy twice at least and you don't or won't listen. That denialism doesn't do you or your case any good.
I'll let readers decide who is making ad hom arguments and who is in denial.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 9:28 am
that does not equat postulating the supernatural miracles and faith -claims with scientific hypotheses.
Is a multiverse a "scientific" hypothesis?
Is inflationary theory a "scientific" hypothesis?
Is dark energy/dark matter a "scientific" hypothesis?
None of these have empirical evidence to show that any of these exist. It's even theoretically impossible to directly measure them. Just because a scientist proposes an explanation does not make them scientific.
There is evidence to make dark matter a hypothesis to explain an observed effect.
How do you directly measure dark matter? What is the evidence?
That cannot be equated withe a faithclaim such as a god (name you own) doing it with no hypothesis how. The two things - Theist faithclaim and scientific hypothesis are NOT equivalent, you are equivocating in pretending they are,
Please point to me where I've said a faith claim and a scientific hypothesis are equivalent.
All I've said is that we see modern science abandoning naturalistic explanations. So, it's not the non-naturalistic realm trying to conform to science. Rather, what we see is science conforming to the non-naturalistic realm.
I know how science works - it is not fiddling the evidence to fit the faithclaim.
We will get back to this, esp when we take a deep dive into C14 dating.
But as I said, the hand underneath the other does look too long anyway. I asked you what you thought. You didn't.
I already said "X-ray effect easily explains the fingers being too long." But another factor is image projection distortion. The image we see on the shroud is not actually a photographic-like image. Rather, it is a projection of a 3-D body onto a 2-D surface that was curved. The shroud was laying on the body, so there are curves in the shroud that follow the body. This image projection can distort features, like the fingers.
Like i say, it looks good, but the anatomy does mismatch when you look closer.
There are anomalies throughout the body. And it's because it's not a photo-like image. Which is interesting also in itself in that how would a forger know to depict a 3-D body correctly on a curved 2-D surface? When we reconstruct the true 3-D body image based on the 2-D image of the shroud that includes the curves of the shroud, it is only then do we get a realistic 3-D reconstruction of the body. I'll post more on this later.
I am sure you will find a lot of apologetics material dismissing McCrone. You may save yourself the work as I don't care.
Why don't you care? Or do you accept that McCrone's findings should automatically be dismissed?
The point that he dissents is minor, as is the point that the STURP team may have all been believers.
This is a common charge (as we see in sillybeliefs). Yet, I have found no site publishing what are the religious beliefs of all the STURP members. Until this is produced, this is pure speculation at best and defamation at worst.
The point is, it is one team's findings and the STURP team is One team, isn't it?) and the circumstances of the object require that findings be tested, checked and verified, as they are open to question - that, Mr. Know How Science works is how it is done.
I'll let slide that additional ad hoc comment as well.
So what if it is "one" team? What if it was two teams or three? What does the number of teams have to do with anything?
All of their findings and experimental results have been published. Their publications have been peer reviewed and are still under scrutiny to this day. Anybody can check their results. It's not to say their results are the final word, but there is nothing they are hiding from the scientific community.
I am open to finding that indeed it is a shroud of an actual crucified man.
This is the most logical inference from all the data so far.
But it does show, does it not, that the shroud can hardly have intended for a man they thought was dead, and of course John's Lazarus -bands are straight away in the bin. If it is (at the best) a sheet draped over the body, that suggests that is was temporary, and forget about 100 lb spices. We have already started to see the gospel account of the 'burial' crumble.
It was not simply just draped over, but it was also wrapped by the side strip. I posted this in post 1622:
otseng wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 12:02 am
It is most likely this side strip was wrapped around the body with the shroud to hold it all together.
Dr. John Jackson explains his theory in this BBC documentary:
That's giving the shroud the best. But you see why I'm talking of a contact print, either with a real body or an (admittedly remarkable) image.
Though that's unlikely, it's really the only alternative. But when you say "print", what are you referring to that caused the image? If not paint, then what else?
It is interesting and possibly better evidence for Jesus crucified than the NT could be, as it debunks the gospels and tells of a man taken out of the tomb after NOT having been buried as dead. I'm open to that one, as it was always what the gospels tell us, if we look deeper than the surface.
This possibility will be discussed later. But this scenario is several steps (miles?) down the path of investigation.
Some papers discussing image projection from a 3D body to a shroud draped over the body to account for image distortions:
Though this image appears to be anatomically reasonable, there are some second-order characteristics which indicate that this may not be so: broadening of hips, elongation of arms and fingers, lateral displacement of hair away from side of face.
The general layout of the Shroud image suggests that it was formed by the Shroud draping over a body: this, it is natural to propose that the image distortions might be due to cloth drape. In other words, we are suggesting possible image distortions caused by projecting a three dimensional object onto a curved cloth drape, then observing the cloth flattened onto a two dimensional surface.
We note that the hips, forearm, and fingers (if they had been extended) would show positive distortion as indicated by the data. We further note that other distortions such as broadening of the hair can be observed in the Shroud image.
On the shroud, the hair seems to hand abnormally off to each side of the face, but what could have happened is that the hair was actually in contact with the sides of the face but displaced away by geometric distortion.
Examination of the Turin Shroud for image distortions
W. Ercoline, R. D. Jr., and J. Jackson
IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International
Conference on Cybernetics and Society https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Examination ... %20OCR.pdf
If a cloth is appropriately laid on the front part of a body,
and a body image forms by a vertical projection on
the cloth, no major image distortions occur. Small
image distortions are to be expected, and indeed we
can observe some on the Shroud.
Notice that the sheet almost follows the fingers of
the right hand. If the sheet were flattened – and
the fingers made a vertical projective image on the
sheet – the image of the fingers would have almost
the same length as if they were straight. The appar-
ent distortion is a lengthening of the fingers. We
can verify this fact on the photograph: the mid-
dle finger apparent length is 6.1cm: measured from
(1048, 1031) to (1213, 1245) (line labeled C), that is
270px. This spans 5.9 diagonal grids, which gives
5.9 × 1.518 = 8.9cm. The middle finger of the right
hand is 10cm, as measured directly on the model. So
there is an apparent length increase of this finger by
about 2.8cm.
Notice also that if the fingers of the left hand had
been closer to the edge of the thigh – for example,
by lifting the shoulders up – an apparent length-
ening, compared to the real fingers, would have oc-
curred since a projection of the straight fingers on
the slanted sheet would have happened. This would
have been quite similar to the apparent long extended
fingers seen on the Shroud.
It was shown that, once the blood stains formed by
contact, the top half of the Shroud could not have
been lifted up to be flattened to avoid major
image distortions. After the blood stains formed, the
Shroud essentially stayed in the same position prior
to the image formations.
It was also shown that a flattening of the top half
of the Shroud is not required to avoid major image
distortions. That is, there exists some natural way
for the Shroud to lay on the body while the images
are formed without causing major image distortions
– albeit the Shroud had to be laid carefully over the
body. Moreover, it appears that there are some small
image distortions, coherent with the Shroud laying on
a human body form.
I agree that curved spacetime can be a model, but to say it is not just a model but reality is speculative.
We can observe that light deviates from a straight-line path in the vicinity of massive bodies, and the mathematical models of General Relativity and spacetime quantitatively describe this (along with many other things). We can say that the model correctly predicts what is observed in nature, so the effect it describes is certainly real and not speculative. Spacetime is a 4D coordinate system used for the mathematical framework, but it is not a part of reality in terms of being a physical "thing" itself. It is analogous to a 3D Euclidean coordinate system for solving other math problems ... it isn't "real" itself and imprinted onto normal 3D space, but is a useful mathematical framework for solving real world problems.
If they are not detectable, how can they be considered natural? In the case of the multiverse, if it's not even part of our universe, how can that be considered natural also? Or in the case of extra dimensions with string theory, how can that also be considered natural if it's beyond our 3 dimensions?
Multiverse and string theory were not in the earlier list, but both are attempts to try and solve physics problems or provide more comprehensive solutions than exist already. Physicists are always working towards a "theory of everything", or trying to find a quantum gravity theory to reconcile Relativity and quantum mechanics, and generally attacking any open problem with all kinds of ideas. Ultimately, these models are meant to explain nature via mathematical models and there are certainly some wild ideas out there. But until they are supported by experimental and observational evidence and shown to be valid they remain nothng but hypotheses.
Dark matter is a little different though, because it is just a placeholder phrase for something that might explain real observations ... specifically the idea that there must be some missing mass out there if gravity is what holds galaxies together. Measurements indicate that the visible mass within a galaxy (mostly stars) is not nearly sufficient to have the galaxy remain a structured system. This suggests that there must be some additional mass present that we can't see, hence the term.
Of course, we don't know what this "stuff" is or could be. It may not exist at all and the simple model of mass + gravity is all that is involved is wrong and we don't know why. There is lots of activity trying to figure this out, but it all relates to describing reality at the end of the day. When it is figured out, the term dark matter should disappear and be replaced by whatever is appropriate for what is really going on. It would have been detected, and understood, and no longer a hypothesis but a theory.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win. John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. Mark Twain
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 9:28 am
that does not equat postulating the supernatural miracles and faith -claims with scientific hypotheses.
Is a multiverse a "scientific" hypothesis?
Is inflationary theory a "scientific" hypothesis?
Is dark energy/dark matter a "scientific" hypothesis?
None of these have empirical evidence to show that any of these exist. It's even theoretically impossible to directly measure them. Just because a scientist proposes an explanation does not make them scientific.
There is evidence to make dark matter a hypothesis to explain an observed effect.
How do you directly measure dark matter? What is the evidence?
That cannot be equated withe a faithclaim such as a god (name you own) doing it with no hypothesis how. The two things - Theist faithclaim and scientific hypothesis are NOT equivalent, you are equivocating in pretending they are,
Please point to me where I've said a faith claim and a scientific hypothesis are equivalent.
All I've said is that we see modern science abandoning naturalistic explanations. So, it's not the non-naturalistic realm trying to conform to science. Rather, what we see is science conforming to the non-naturalistic realm.
I know how science works - it is not fiddling the evidence to fit the faithclaim.
We will get back to this, esp when we take a deep dive into C14 dating.
We already did as I recall over the failure of C14 to date coal deposits. I put the explanation and as i recall, it ended there. I see point in revisiting the matter. C14 is a useful tool biut it is not a dogma nor a faithclaim. Kindly do not equate science with Faithclaims. And you did not not equate faithclaims and scientific hypotheses - I did, because you did not or would not recognise your equivocation.
And Dark matter is indeed a scientific hypothesis. Based as I recall on the 'direct' observation energy value of the universe and the rate of expansion. Dark matter and energy are hypothetical and not demonstrated but are scientific, as you could have found if you had googled it as readily as you searched out Shroud apologetics to post.
But as I said, the hand underneath the other does look too long anyway. I asked you what you thought. You didn't.
I already said "X-ray effect easily explains the fingers being too long." But another factor is image projection distortion. The image we see on the shroud is not actually a photographic-like image. Rather, it is a projection of a 3-D body onto a 2-D surface that was curved. The shroud was laying on the body, so there are curves in the shroud that follow the body. This image projection can distort features, like the fingers.
Like i say, it looks good, but the anatomy does mismatch when you look closer.
There are anomalies throughout the body. And it's because it's not a photo-like image. Which is interesting also in itself in that how would a forger know to depict a 3-D body correctly on a curved 2-D surface? When we reconstruct the true 3-D body image based on the 2-D image of the shroud that includes the curves of the shroud, it is only then do we get a realistic 3-D reconstruction of the body. I'll post more on this later.
I am sure you will find a lot of apologetics material dismissing McCrone. You may save yourself the work as I don't care.
Why don't you care? Or do you accept that McCrone's findings should automatically be dismissed?
The point that he dissents is minor, as is the point that the STURP team may have all been believers.
This is a common charge (as we see in sillybeliefs). Yet, I have found no site publishing what are the religious beliefs of all the STURP members. Until this is produced, this is pure speculation at best and defamation at worst.
The point is, it is one team's findings and the STURP team is One team, isn't it?) and the circumstances of the object require that findings be tested, checked and verified, as they are open to question - that, Mr. Know How Science works is how it is done.
I'll let slide that additional ad hoc comment as well.
So what if it is "one" team? What if it was two teams or three? What does the number of teams have to do with anything?
All of their findings and experimental results have been published. Their publications have been peer reviewed and are still under scrutiny to this day. Anybody can check their results. It's not to say their results are the final word, but there is nothing they are hiding from the scientific community.
I am open to finding that indeed it is a shroud of an actual crucified man.
This is the most logical inference from all the data so far.
But it does show, does it not, that the shroud can hardly have intended for a man they thought was dead, and of course John's Lazarus -bands are straight away in the bin. If it is (at the best) a sheet draped over the body, that suggests that is was temporary, and forget about 100 lb spices. We have already started to see the gospel account of the 'burial' crumble.
It was not simply just draped over, but it was also wrapped by the side strip. I posted this in post 1622:
otseng wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 12:02 am
It is most likely this side strip was wrapped around the body with the shroud to hold it all together.
Dr. John Jackson explains his theory in this BBC documentary:
That's giving the shroud the best. But you see why I'm talking of a contact print, either with a real body or an (admittedly remarkable) image.
Though that's unlikely, it's really the only alternative. But when you say "print", what are you referring to that caused the image? If not paint, then what else?
It is interesting and possibly better evidence for Jesus crucified than the NT could be, as it debunks the gospels and tells of a man taken out of the tomb after NOT having been buried as dead. I'm open to that one, as it was always what the gospels tell us, if we look deeper than the surface.
This possibility will be discussed later. But this scenario is several steps (miles?) down the path of investigation.
You're missing the point about the wrist - it may be just visible below the one on top in which case, x - ray effect or not, the fingers of the hand beneath are too long. I do not get how a shroud laid across the body could distort the fingers that much. Explain, please. Also I asked what you thought about the wrist below vanishing. that surely argues against an effect from within which rules out an x -ray - like effect.
It is points like these that raise doubts about this being the shroud of a crucified man or a very convincing representation of one.
I think you were wise to let my comment slide after you presumed to lecture me on how science works, when you were equating religious faithclaims with science -based hypotheses.
I don't care about McCrone as the results are not verified. McCrone's oxide is dismissed as an effect of the overall washing of the cloth before use, but this and other claims that handily rule out anything but 'it is real' require validation - as does the C14 date. Thus these are significant but not conclusive evidence, which is why I do not care. I'm looking for evidence for and against that we can check, not the claims of a team that already look dodgy to me because of what they ignored.
Like the flat image. I thought you'd accepted that. Are you still claiming it was wrapped around the body and bundled up? The image refutes that. And don't throw BBC apologetics documentaries (I read one online and it was clearly arguing for the shroud) at me. Explain here for the benefit of the browsers whether you accept a flat image or not and if not why it is apparently a flat image. And yes, it is a photo like image even if a 3d -image can be produced from it. It is not in itself 3d. This being agreed, discussing the 3d image is irrelevant. That is is a photonegative - like image and not a painted portrait is not denied.
What caused it? I'll skip over that 'explain everything or accept goddunnit' ploy, and say only that the evidence is for an outside (shining on the sheet) effect that left what works as a negative image. If only there was medieval cloth - plate photography, that would be the go - to explanation, but there surely isn't so I am at a loss. Unless it is renaissance date, but the C14 argues against that, as does the Lirey medallion. So it is futile asking me for explanations. I can only point to evidence of what it is not, rather than what it is.
The 'disciples took the body' is so far ahead of 'investigation' that the authorities will take fifty years to catch up. Sorry if this sounds egotistical, but I hardly EVER see any Gospel investigation that has even got started on where I am now wrapping it up. This maybe isn't the place to go over it again, but I will if required.
Yes, - the awarding yourself of the win. No, it is not the most logical conclusion. It is the most outwardly convincing and persuasive conclusion, but so is the gospels. But like them, queries make it look less surefire certain.
What more you got? Nothing much but excuses, misdirection and irrelevance - like one team it didn't occur to you that a closed circle of shroud apologists would look like one team rather than three with perhaps different findings? I hate to play the Bias card or accuse anyone of conspiracies, but some things look dodgy. The 'blood first' claim looks a bit wonky. l gather from the UV that the exudiae is on the chest and back of the head. But it doesn't look lighter to me so the claim that the threads under the exudiae are lighter seems questionable. You don't have any nagging feeling that some evidence is being found that really isn't there? And wouldn't a Team with desire to find particular evidence look just like that?.
ok. Nothing to see here. It seems the idea of a cloth being laid over a body (or clever image of one) is the conclusion and not a wrap around shroud. Minor distortions are fine, not such as would double the length of the fingers. Unless I'm mistaken about the lower hand. What do others think now i raised the matter?
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:12 pmSpacetime is a 4D coordinate system used for the mathematical framework, but it is not a part of reality in terms of being a physical "thing" itself. It is analogous to a 3D Euclidean coordinate system for solving other math problems ... it isn't "real" itself and imprinted onto normal 3D space, but is a useful mathematical framework for solving real world problems.
Completely agree. However, doesn't making the assertion that spacetime can be stretched and that it can carry along light mean that it would be more than a model and be an actual entity?
By picking three synonyms for a blunderbuss term, that does not equat postulating the supernatural miracles and faith -claims with scientific hypotheses. They are quite different things with different levels of credibility (science, high through past performance, the supernatural, low, though not having validated anything). Now,give this fiddle up because it has been blown. 
I'll skip over that 'explain everything or accept goddunnit' ploy, and say only that the evidence is for an outside (shining on the sheet) effect that left what works as a negative image. If only there was medieval cloth - plate photography, that would be the go - to explanation, but there surely isn't so I am at a loss. Unless it is renaissance date, but the C14 argues against that, as does the Lirey medallion. So it is futile asking me for explanations. I can only point to evidence of what it is not, rather than what it is. 
