Handing Out Evidence for God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Mar 13, 2019.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,901
    How is it possible to pass scientific scrutiny - even in principle?

    It is not possible for a material to indicate the identity of a person, unless we have DNA samples.
    It's not possible for a material to indicate that it was involved in a resurrection.

    The best it can do is be plausible.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,901
    This video is a joke.

    Skip to 4:45.

    "We're going to build a DNA profile based on the physical descriptions of Jesus..."
    "On each physical description we will make a white line on the DNA fingerprint that you see..."

    Look: a sample of DNA with genes marked on it! There's a gene for crown of thorns!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's right folks:
    - the bearer of the Shroud does not carry a gene for a crown of thorns.
    - Jesus also doesn't carry a gene for a crown of thorns.
    - therefore Jesus was the shroud bearer.

    I wonder, are there people out there whose DNA carries the gene for a crown of thorns? Is it a dominant trait. Are their children born with a crown of thorns? Isn't that tough on the mother?

    Gosh, this DNA stuff is hard. That's why we leave it to our priests.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019 at 6:36 PM
    Write4U and sideshowbob like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    What sides?
    No, it didn't. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...er-study-carbon-dating-debunked-a8450101.html
    BTW Nobody's been charged with anything.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,013
    Makes me wonder where people get these ideas. It's like the creationist claim that scientists are rejecting evolution in droves. Don't you guys look at the other side at all?
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    No, they don't. There's no satisfaction in knowing the truth. The dream promises much more.
     
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    Yeah, just so long as you don't garble the words of the incantation, or sacrifice a blemished bullock, or get a haircut.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    Yes, must strictly adhere to the prescribed rituals. It is the only way one can communicate with the supernatural.
    A little blood is often required......gods like blood.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,128
    Agreed. But that would seem to describe research on the shroud very well. The vast majority of the researchers who worked on it were believers, who had a strong incentive to find it to be "authentic" - and were assured of fame and fortune from other believers as long as they came to the preordained conclusion.
     
  12. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    I agree, excellent point, I thought the very same thing. I just take it as a graphic representation only. Thanks!
     
  13. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    I really don’t think this description matches or treats fairly the scientists who actually worked on the Shroud at all. Certainly you would not suggest that the scientists who worked on the carbon dating were like this, would you.

    Some of them were very reluctant to even be on the team.

    Would you like me to put a list together for you?
     
  14. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    The sacrifices in the Old Testament were only a Shadow or prophesy concerning Jesus Christ. A symbol for the sacrifice He would make for us in the future on the cross. You know that!
     
  15. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    True in many cases. Not a good route for me.
     
  16. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    Thanks for the article! I appreciate it.

    The carbon dating is obviously wrong for a number of reasons.

    Not the method, the sample that was taken was on the edge, and was a repair made up of linen and cotton.

    And there are references to the Shroud that were written far earlier than the carbon date would allow for.

    I will look up the name of the scientist on the original team who agreed that the carbon dating had to be off because of the more recent repair sample that was used for the tests. He was not a Christian.

    His name was Ray Rogers, there is video of him.
     
  17. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    Investigators for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) include:

    1. Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation* - Infrared spectroscopy
    2. Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* - Infrared spectral measurements
    3. John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* - Technical support for all experiments
    4. Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography* - Scientific photography
    5. Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography* - Microphotography, photomicroscopy
    6. Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography* - Scientific photography (Deceased)
    7. Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office -Medical, forensics (Deceased)
    8. Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.* - Scientific photography, image analysis (Deceased)
    9. Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado* - Technical support of all experiments
    10. Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Chemistry, tape sample removal/analysis (Deceased)
    11. Donald Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Image analysis
    12. Joan Janney Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Technical support
    13. J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - X-ray radiography and X-ray fluorescence (Deceased)
    14. Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - X-ray fluorescence (Deceased)
    15. Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* - Chemistry, tape sample removal/analysis (Deceased)
    16. Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories - Physics, X-ray fluorescesnce
    17. Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories - Chemistry, Archaeology (Deceased)
    18. Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM* - Public relations
    19. Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University - Biochemist, tape sample analysis (Deceased)
    20. Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation* - Logistics
    21. Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum - Conservation
    22. Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center - Medical analysis (Deceased)
    23. Roger Gilbert, Oriel Corporation* - Visible/UV spectroscopy
    24. Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation* - Visible/UV spectroscopy
    25. Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph* - Thermography
    26. John Heller, New England Institute - Biophysics (Deceased)
    27. John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy* - STURP President, measurements/analysis
    28. Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy* - STURP Vice-president, measurements/analysis
    29. Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory* - Image analysis (Deceased)
    30. Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory* - Image analysis (Deceased)
    31. Robert William (Bill) Mottern, Sandia National Laboratory* - Image analysis, X-ray radiography (Deceased)
    32. Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center* - Visible/UV spectroscopy
    33. Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios* - Documentation Photography


    Note: The researchers marked with an * participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,955
    naming places doesn't make scientific fact

    philosophy deals with ideas, not land marks
    land marks are materialist symbology of perception.

    note loosing the shoe in the life of Brian



    finding a shoe or a mountain does not validate OR invalidate philosophy
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    As I said, Gods like blood and blood sacrifice.

    Eating the "flesh" and drinking the "blood" is paying homage to Divinity?
    Sounds a little primitive to me.
     
  20. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    Funny Film Clip, Thanks for the laugh!!!
     
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    How is it helpful to list all the laboratories that wasted time on this one bogus relic? It was known to be a fake back in the 14th century.
     
  22. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068


    Here is a testimony from one of the original team members.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,128
    I didn't say that all scientists agreed. I said "vast majority." The scientists to whom faith was more important have found ways to "adjust" their discoveries.

    Look, if believing in the Shroud of Turin is central to your religious faith, then believe away. It's like some people's belief in the Earth being 6000 years old, or that Adam and Eve were the first people, or that climate change isn't happening. I have long since learned the futility in discussing something that is essential to someone's core beliefs. Your need to believe will trump anything that has to do with science, every time.
     

Share This Page