Home » Intelligent Design » Whose side are you on, Professor Coyne? What Anatole France really said about miracles

Whose side are you on, Professor Coyne? What Anatole France really said about miracles

Here’s a question for skeptics. Is there any evidence that would convince you that the laws of Nature can be suspended, and that miracles do indeed occur?

Interestingly, modern-day skeptics are divided on this issue. Professor P. Z. Myers and Dr. Michael Shermer say that nothing would convince them; while Professor Jerry Coyne and Professor Sean Carroll say that if the evidence were good enough, they would provisionally accept the reality of the supernatural. (See here and here for a round-up of their views.)

So I was surprised when Professor Jerry Coyne, in a recent post on the works of the great agnostic Robert Ingersoll (pictured above left), approvingly quoted a passage from his 1872 essay, The Gods, in which he declared that the occurrence of a miracle today would demonstrate the existence of a supernatural Deity, and then followed up with a quote from another great skeptic, Anatole France (pictured above right), whose position on the matter was precisely the opposite of Ingersoll’s!

Ingersoll: a skeptic, but an open-minded one

Here is a relevant excerpt from Ingersoll’s essay, The Gods. (N.B. All bold emphases in this post are mine – VJT):

There is but one way to demonstrate the existence of a power independent of and superior to nature, and that is by breaking, if only for one moment, the continuity of cause and effect. Pluck from the endless chain of existence one little link; stop for one instant the grand procession and you have shown beyond all contradiction that nature has a master…

The church wishes us to believe. Let the church, or one of its intellectual saints, perform a miracle, and we will believe. We are told that nature has a superior. Let this superior, for one single instant, control nature, and we will admit the truth of your assertions…

We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a ‘this year’s fact’. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years. Their reputation for “truth and veracity” in the neighborhood where they resided is wholly unknown to us. Give us a new miracle, and substantiate it by witnesses who still have the cheerful habit of living in this world…

We demand a new miracle, and we demand it now. Let the church furnish at least one, or forever after hold her peace.

Ingersoll was a skeptic, but at least he was an honest man, open to new evidence. Professor Coyne then went on to gleefully quote a short passage from Anatole France’s essay, Miracle, published in his 1895 anthology, Le Jardin d’Epicure (The Garden of Epicurus). In the essay, the author described a recent visit that he had made to Lourdes. His companion, upon noticing the discarded wooden crutches on display at the grotto, pointed them out and whispered in his ear:

“One single wooden leg would have been much more convincing.”

Anatole France’s 1895 essay, Miracle: a classic example of closed-minded dogmatism

The above translation is Coyne’s; he tells us that he had great difficulty in tracking down the original quote. (There are dozens of sites on the Internet where he could have found it, and the essay can also be found in the late Christopher Hitchens’ work, The Portable Atheist.) But what Coyne omitted to mention was that Anatole France then went on to add that no amount of evidence would convince him of the occurrence of a miracle, because of his prior commitment to naturalism. Below, I shall reproduce in its entirety France’s 1895 essay, Miracle, in order to give the reader an opportunity to see how philosophical rigidity can close the mind of a skeptic:

We should not say: There are no miracles, because none has ever been proved. This always leaves it open to the Orthodox to appeal to a more complete state of knowledge. The truth is, no miracle can, from the nature of things, be stated as an established fact; to do so will always involve drawing a premature conclusion. A deeply rooted instinct tells us that whatever Nature embraces in her bosom is conformable to her laws, either known or occult. But, even supposing he could silence this presentiment of his, a man will never be in a position to say: “Such and such a fact is outside the limits of Nature.” Our researches will never carry us as far as that. Moreover, if it is of the essence of miracle to elude scientific investigation, every dogma attesting it invokes an intangible witness that is bound to evade our grasp to the end of time.

This notion of miracles belongs to the infancy of the mind, and cannot continue when once the human intellect has begun to frame a systematic picture of the universe. The wise Greeks could not tolerate the idea. Hippocrates said, speaking of epilepsy: “This malady is called divine; but all diseases are divine, and all alike come from the gods.” There he spoke as a natural philosopher. Human reason is less assured of itself nowadays. What annoys me above all is when people say: “We do not believe in miracles, because no miracle is proved.”

Happening to be at Lourdes, in August, I paid a visit to the grotto where innumerable crutches were hung up in token of a cure. My companion pointed to these trophies of the sick-room and hospital ward, and whispered in my ear:

“One wooden leg would be more to the point.”

It was the word of a man of sense; but speaking philosophically, the wooden leg would be no whit more convincing than a crutch. If an observer of a genuinely scientific spirit were called upon to verify that a man’s leg, after amputation, had suddenly grown again as before, whether in a miraculous pool or anywhere else, he would not cry: “Lo! a miracle.” He would say this:

An observation, so far unique, points us to a presumption that under conditions still undetermined, the tissues of a human leg have the property of reorganizing themselves like a crab’s or lobster’s claws and a lizard’s tail, but much more rapidly. Here we have a fact of nature in apparent contradiction with several other facts of the like sort. The contradiction arises from our ignorance, and clearly shows that the science of animal physiology must be reconstituted, or to speak more accurately, that it has never yet been properly constituted. It is little more than two hundred years since we first had any true conception of the circulation of the blood. It is barely a century since we learned what is implied in the act of breathing.”

I admit it would need some boldness to speak in this strain. But the man of science should be above surprise. At the same time, let us hasten to add, none of them have ever been put to such a proof, and nothing leads us to apprehend any such prodigy. Such miraculous cures as the doctors have been able to verify to their satisfaction are all quite in accordance with physiology. So far the tombs of the Saints, the magic springs and sacred grottoes, have never proved efficient except in the case of patients suffering from complaints either curable or susceptible of instantaneous relief. But were a dead man revived before our eyes, no miracle would be proved, unless we knew what life is and death is, and that we shall never know.

What is the definition of a miracle? We are told: a breach of the laws of nature. But we do not know the laws of nature; how, then, are we to know whether a particular fact is a breach of these laws or no?

“But surely we know some of these laws?”

“True, we have arrived at some idea of the correlation of things. But failing as we do to grasp all the natural laws, we can be sure of none, seeing they are mutually interdependent.”

“Still, we might verify our miracle in those series of correlations we have arrived at.”

“No, not with anything like philosophical certainty. Besides, it is precisely those series we regard as the most stable and best determined which suffer least interruption from the miraculous. Miracles never, for instance, try to interfere with the mechanism of the heavens. They never disturb the course of the celestial bodies, and never advance or retard the calculated date of an eclipse. On the contrary, their favourite field is the obscure domain of pathology as concerned with the internal organs, and above all nervous diseases. However, we must not confound a question of fact with one of principle. In principle the man of science is ill-qualified to verify a supernatural occurrence. Such verification presupposes a complete and final knowledge of nature, which he does not possess, and will never possess, and which no one ever did possess in this world. It is just because I would not believe our most skilful oculists as to the miraculous healing of a blind man that a fortiori I do not believe Matthew or Mark either, who were not oculists. A miracle is by definition unidentifiable and unknowable.”

The savants cannot in any case certify that a fact is in contradiction with the universal order that is with the unknown ordinance of the Divinity. Even God could do this only by formulating a pettifogging distinction between the general manifestations and the particular manifestations of His activity, acknowledging that from time to time He gives little timid finishing touches to His work and condescending to the humiliating admission that the cumbersome machine He has set agoing needs every hour or so, to get it to jog along indifferently well, a push from its contriver’s hand.

Science is well fitted, on the other hand, to bring back under the data of positive knowledge facts which seemed to be outside its limits. It often succeeds very happily in accounting by physical causes for phenomena that had for centuries been regarded as supernatural. Cures of spinal affections were confidently believed to have taken place at the tomb of the Deacon Paris at Saint-Medard and in other holy places. These cures have ceased to surprise since it has become known that hysteria occasionally simulates the symptoms associated with lesions of the spinal marrow.

The appearance of a new star to the mysterious personages whom the Gospels call the “Wise Men of the East” (I assume the incident to be authentic historically) was undoubtedly a miracle to the Astrologers of the Middle Ages, who believed that the firmament, in which the stars were stuck like nails, was subject to no change whatever. But, whether real or supposed, the star of the Magi has lost its miraculous character for us, who know that the heavens are incessantly perturbed by the birth and death of worlds, and who in 1866 saw a star suddenly blaze forth in the Corona Borealis, shine for a month, and then go out.

It did not proclaim the Messiah; all it announced was that, at an infinitely remote distance from our earth, an appalling conflagration was burning up a world in a few days, — or rather had burnt it up long ago, for the ray that brought us the news of this disaster in the heavens had been on the road for five hundred years and possibly longer.

The miracle of Bolsena is familiar to everybody, immortalized as it is in one of Raphael’s Stanze at the Vatican. A skeptical priest was celebrating Mass; the host, when he broke it for Communion, appeared bespattered with blood. It is only within the last ten years that the Academies of Science would not have been sorely puzzled to explain so strange a phenomenon. Now no one thinks of denying it, since the discovery of a microscopic fungus, the spores of which, having germinated in the meal or dough, offer the appearance of clotted blood. The naturalist who first found it, rightly thinking that here were the red blotches on the wafer in the Bolsena miracle, named the fungus micrococcus prodigiosus.

There will always be a fungus, a star, or a disease that human science does not know of; and for this reason it must always behoove the philosopher, in the name of the undying ignorance of man, to deny every miracle and say of the most startling wonders, — the host of Bolsena, the star in the East, the cure of the paralytic and the like: Either it is not, or it is; and if it is, it is part of nature and therefore natural.

Seven flawed arguments against miracles

Anatole France’s essay on miracles is riddled with flaws. The fallacy in the final paragraph, where he argues that whatever exists, must be natural, should be evident to readers, without the need for further comment.

The second great fallacy in France’s reasoning regarding miracles is that he neglects probability, and frames the issue only in terms of certitude. Even if we grant his point that science can never know all the laws of Nature and can therefore never show that an event is miraculous, the fact remains that certain events are astronomically improbable – indeed, so improbable that the only prudent conclusion to draw, if one observed them, would be that they are miraculous. A tornado blowing a house down does not strike us as remarkable, but rewind the tape, and I think that even hardened skeptics would agree that here we have a sequence of events which is so improbable that we would have to call it a miracle.

Third, if Anatole France’s argument that scientists can never know all the laws of Nature were correct, then by the same token, they could never know for sure that the universe is a closed system – in which case, France’s a priori argument against the possibility of miracles collapses.

Fourth, it might be urged by modern-day skeptics that the discovery of a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, which some physicists dream of, would allow scientists to ascertain which events are ruled out by the laws of Nature, as it would yield a complete list of those laws. But if it did that, then the scientifically verified occurrence of an event ruled out by the laws of Nature would have to count as evidence for the supernatural.

Fifth, the tired old Humean objection that no matter how strong the evidence for a miracle may be, it is always more likely that the witnesses to that miracle are either lying or mistaken, rests upon a mathematical flaw, which was pointed out long ago by Charles Babbage, in his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (2nd ed., London, 1838; digitized for the Victorian Web by Dr. John van Wyhe and proof-read by George P. Landow). I’d like to quote here from David Coppedge’s masterly online work, THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS From Y1K to Y2K:

Babbage’s Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (hereafter, NBT) is available online and makes for interesting reading … Most interesting is his rebuttal to the arguments of David Hume (1711-1776), the skeptical philosopher who had created quite a stir with his seemingly persuasive argument against miracles. Again, it was based on the Newtonian obsession with natural law. Hume argued that it is more probable that those claiming to have seen a miracle were either lying or deceived than that the regularity of nature had been violated. Babbage knew a lot more about the mathematics of probability than Hume. In chapter X of NBT, Babbage applied numerical values to the question, chiding Hume for his subjectivity. A quick calculation proves that if there were 99 reliable witnesses to the resurrection of a man from the dead (and I Corinthians 15:6 claims there were over 500), the probability is a trillion to one against the falsehood of their testimony, compared to the probability of one in 200 billion against anyone in the history of the world having been raised from the dead. This simple calculation shows it takes more faith to deny the miracle than to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses. Thus Babbage renders specious Hume’s assertion that the improbability of a miracle could never be overcome by any number of witnesses. Apply the math, and the results do not support that claim, Babbage says: “From this it results that, provided we assume that independent witnesses can be found of whose testimony it can be stated that it is more probable that it is true than that it is false, we can always assign a number of witnesses which will, according to Hume’s argument, prove the truth of a miracle. (Italics in original.) Babbage takes his conquest of Hume so far that by Chapter XIII, he argues that “It is more probable that any law, at the knowledge of which we have arrived by observation, shall be subject to one of those violations which, according to Hume’s definition, constitutes a miracle, than that it should not be so subjected.”

Sixth, Anatole France’s snide put-down of the miracles worked by a Deity as being tantamount to “little timid finishing touches to His work,” which are required because “the cumbersome machine He has set agoing needs every hour or so, to get it to jog along indifferently well, a push from its contriver’s hand,” was also convincingly rebutted by Charles Babbage. To quote Coppedge again:

The heart of NBT [the Ninth Bridgewater Treatise - VJT] is an argument that miracles do not violate natural law, using Babbage’s own concept of a calculating machine. This forms an engaging thought experiment. With his own Analytical Engine undoubtedly fresh on his mind, he asks the reader to imagine a calculating engine that might show very predictable regularity, even for billions of iterations, such as a machine that counts integers. Then imagine it suddenly jumps to another natural law, which again repeats itself with predictable regularity. If the designer of the engine had made it that way on purpose, it would show even more intelligent design than if it only continued counting integers forever. Babbage extends his argument through several permutations, to the point where he convinces the reader that it takes more intelligence to design a general purpose calculating engine that can operate reliably according to multiple natural laws, each known to the designer, each predictable by the designer, than to design a simple machine that mindlessly clicks away according to a single law. So here we see Babbage employing his own specialty – the general-purpose calculating machine – to argue his point. He concluded, therefore, as he reiterated in his later autobiographical work Passages from the Life of a Philosopher (1864), miracles are not “the breach of established laws, but… indicate the existence of far higher laws.”

Babbage’s suggestion is an intriguing one, which invites the question: how exactly should a miracle be defined? Should it be defined as the violation of the laws of Nature, or should it be simply be defined as an event at variance with lower-level laws, which support the regular order of things? Perhaps the latter definition would be more fruitful. And that brigs me to a seventh flaw in France’s argument against miracles: even if he were right in saying that whatever happens, happens in accordance with some law of Nature, what he fails to realize is that this argument against supernaturalism only holds if scientific reductionism is true. In other words, France is assuming that there are no higher-level laws of Nature (perhaps known only to the Author of Nature) which govern rare and singular occurrences, and which cannot be derived from the lower-level laws which support the regular order of Nature. France has no response to the question: what is so absurd about the concept of a singular law, or more generally, a law which does not supervene upon lower-level laws?

But rather than waste time arguing about the definition of a miracle, I would argue that the more profound question is: what kind of evidence warrants belief in an Intelligent Designer of Nature, and what kind of evidence should lead us to conclude that this Designer is a supernatural Being?

I might add that Anatole France never bothered to check out the evidence for Eucharistic miracles (see also here), or for God healing amputees (see here). I would invite readers to draw their own conclusions on those matters. While I can certainly understand and respect the attitude of a skeptic who says that the available evidence for miracles is not strong enough to sway his/her mind, I have to say that a skeptic like Anatole France, who refuses to even consider the possibility that he/she may be wrong strikes very much like the Aristotelian philosophers of the 17th century who, according to popular legend, refused even to look through Galileo’s telescope, because they feared that it might falsify their theories. (By the way, that story is apocryphal – see here.)

A question for Professor Coyne: whose side are you on?

I would now like to ask Professor Coyne and my skeptical readers: whose side are you on? Do you side with Ingersoll, who would be convinced were he to witness a modern miracle? Or do you side with Anatole France, who stoutly maintains that nothing would convince him of the occurrence of a miracle? You cannot have it both ways.

Until now, Professor Coyne has always declared himself to be open to the possibility of a miracle. Science, he believes, could in principle supply strong evidence (but not proof) of the miraculous. In a November 8, 2010 post entitled, Shermer and I disagree on the supernatural, Coyne wrote:

I don’t see science as committed to methodological naturalism — at least in terms of accepting only natural explanations for natural phenomena. Science is committed to a) finding out what phenomena are real, and b) coming up with the best explanations for those real, natural phenomena. Methodological naturalism is not an a priori commitment, but a strategy that has repeatedly worked in science, and so has been adopted by all working scientists.

As for me, I am committed only to finding out what phenomena really occur, and then making a hypothesis to explain them, whether that hypothesis be “supernatural” or not. In principle we could demonstrate ESP or telekinesis, both of which violate the laws of physics, and my conclusion would be, for the former, “some people can read the thoughts of others at a distance, though I don’t know how that is done.” If only Christian prayers were answered, and Jesus appeared doing miracles left and right, documented by all kinds of evidence, I would say, “It looks as if some entity that comports with the Christian God is working ‘miracles,’ though I don’t know how she does it.” ….

Science can never prove anything. If you accept that, then we can never absolutely prove the absence of a “supernatural” god — or the presence of one. We can only find evidence that supports or weakens a given hypothesis. There is not an iota of evidence for The God Hypothesis, but I claim that there could be.

Sean Carroll on the supernatural

Professor Coyne is not alone in his rejection of dogmatic methodological naturalism. The atheist physicist Sean Carroll has candidly acknowledged that there is a possibility, in principle, that science could one day decide in favor of the miraculous, in an essay refreshingly free from dogmatism, entitled, Is Dark Matter Supernatural? (Discover magazine, November 1, 2010):

Let’s imagine that there really were some sort of miraculous component to existence, some influence that directly affected the world we observe without being subject to rigid laws of behavior. How would science deal with that?

The right way to answer this question is to ask how actual scientists would deal with that, rather than decide ahead of time what is and is not “science” and then apply this definition to some new phenomenon. If life on Earth included regular visits from angels, or miraculous cures as the result of prayer, scientists would certainly try to understand it using the best ideas they could come up with. To be sure, their initial ideas would involve perfectly “natural” explanations of the traditional scientific type. And if the examples of purported supernatural activity were sufficiently rare and poorly documented (as they are in the real world), the scientists would provisionally conclude that there was insufficient reason to abandon the laws of nature. What we think of as lawful, “natural” explanations are certainly simpler — they involve fewer metaphysical categories, and better-behaved ones at that — and correspondingly preferred, all things being equal, to supernatural ones.

But that doesn’t mean that the evidence could never, in principle, be sufficient to overcome this preference. Theory choice in science is typically a matter of competing comprehensive pictures, not dealing with phenomena on a case-by-case basis. There is a presumption in favor of simple explanation; but there is also a presumption in favor of fitting the data. In the real world, there is data favoring the claim that Jesus rose from the dead: it takes the form of the written descriptions in the New Testament. Most scientists judge that this data is simply unreliable or mistaken, because it’s easier to imagine that non-eyewitness-testimony in two-thousand-year-old documents is inaccurate that to imagine that there was a dramatic violation of the laws of physics and biology. But if this kind of thing happened all the time, the situation would be dramatically different; the burden on the “unreliable data” explanation would become harder and harder to bear, until the preference would be in favor of a theory where people really did rise from the dead.

There is a perfectly good question of whether science could ever conclude that the best explanation was one that involved fundamentally lawless behavior. The data in favor of such a conclusion would have to be extremely compelling, for the reasons previously stated, but I don’t see why it couldn’t happen. Science is very pragmatic, as the origin of quantum mechanics vividly demonstrates. Over the course of a couple decades, physicists (as a community) were willing to give up on extremely cherished ideas of the clockwork predictability inherent in the Newtonian universe, and agree on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. That’s what fit the data. Similarly, if the best explanation scientists could come up with for some set of observations necessarily involved a lawless supernatural component, that’s what they would do. There would inevitably be some latter-day curmudgeonly Einstein figure who refused to believe that God ignored the rules of his own game of dice, but the debate would hinge on what provided the best explanation, not a priori claims about what is and is not science.

There is much wisdom in Carroll’s words. Science cannot let itself be imprisoned by metaphysical dogmas.

More about Ingersoll: what did he believe on God and a hereafter, and what drove him to attack religion?

Before I finish, I’d like to add one more quote from Robert Ingersoll’s essay, The Gods. It’s a real pity that Professor Coyne didn’t quote this passage, as it illustrates perfectly the misplaced confidence of the skeptic:

A new world has been discovered by the microscope; everywhere has been found the infinite; in every direction man has investigated and explored and nowhere, in earth or stars, has been found the footstep of any being superior to or independent of nature. Nowhere has been discovered the slightest evidence of any interference from without.

Famous last words! Abiogenesis, anyone? And what about the fine-tuning argument? Ingersoll was at least an honest doubter. I wonder what conclusions he would draw if he were alive today.

But even Ingersoll was, it seems, the prisoner of his age. Although he expressed a willingness, in principle, to accept evidence of miracles, apparently he found the idea of a genuinely supernatural Being inconceivable. In an interview with The Dispatch (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, December 11, 1880), Ingersoll declared [scroll down to page 57]:

There may be a God for all I know. There may be thousands of them. But the idea of an independent Being outside and independent of Nature is inconceivable. I do not know of any word or doctrine that would explain my views upon that subject. I suppose Pantheism is as near as I could go. I believe in the eternity of matter and thee eternity of intelligence, but I do not believe in any being outside of Nature. I do not believe in any personal Deity. I do not believe in any aristocracy of the air. I know nothing about origin or destiny…. I believe that in all matter, in some way, there is what we call force; that one of the forms of force is intelligence.

Regarding immortality, however, Ingersoll was more open-minded. In the same interview, he acknowledged that there might be an afterlife, and in a revealing passage, he admitted that what drove him in his crusade against religion was one thing and one thing only: the doctrine, which he found deeply abhorrent, of an everlasting Hell to which the majority of human beings would be consigned:

My opinion of immortality is this:
First.- I live, and that of itself is infinitely wonderful. Second.- There was a time when I was not, and after I was not, I was. Third.- Now that I am, I may be again; and it is no more wonderful that I may be again, if I have been, than that I am, having once been nothing. If the churches advocated immortality, if they advocated eternal justice, if they said that man would be rewarded and punished according to deeds; if they admitted that at some time in eternity there would be an opportunity to lift up souls, and that throughout all the ages the angels of progress and virtue, would beckon the fallen upward; and that some time, and no matter how far away they might put off the time, all the children of men would be reasonably happy, I never would say a solitary word against the church, but just as long as they preach that the majority of mankind will suffer eternal pain, just so long I shall oppose them; that is to say, as long as I live.

I wonder what Ingersoll would make of the late Cardinal Avery Dulles’ essay, The Population of Hell (First Things, May 2003), if he were alive in the 21st century. And I wonder if Professor Coyne will be brave enough to print the foregoing passage from Ingersoll, in his weekly series over at Why Evolution Is True on the great skeptic’s views. We shall see.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

127 Responses to Whose side are you on, Professor Coyne? What Anatole France really said about miracles

  1. As to the miraculous:

    Miracles: Keener’s Reflections – videos
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....EEB62AE426

    of note: I’ve always been perplexed by how the religious leaders of the Bible, instead of being awestruck that a man would be healed by Jesus, plotted rather to kill Jesus for ‘working on the sabbath’.

    Matthew 12
    11He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
    13Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

    And further along in the Bible some of these religious leaders demanded a miracle,,,

    Matthew 12
    38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”

    Yet Jesus answered,,,

    39He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    And I believe that ‘sign’ that he granted the religious leaders of that day is still with us today:

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205

  2. Somebody should apprise Sean Carroll about quantum physics and non-locality.

    The cardiac specialist and NDE researcher, Pim van Lommel, addresses the subject in relation to NDE’s and mind/brain dualism:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOeLJCdHojU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1k4fwWZMwI

  3. And remember, BA, instead of being overawed by Jesus’ raising of his friend, Lazarus, from the dead, the religious authorities were still obsessing about how protect their authority in the face of Jesus’ manifestation of uniquely divine power. Lazarus’ corpse, remember was by that time already putrefying.

    Emile Zola once claimed that he’d only believe in the miracles claimed at Lourdes, if he personally witnessed one. He did. But he didn’t. Who’da thunk?

  4. Here’s a question for skeptics. Is there any evidence that would convince you that the laws of Nature can be suspended, and that miracles do indeed occur?

    Evidence of a discontinuity would be something to consider. Any event that “violated” the idea that the universe has regular properties or “laws” would be a candidate.

    The myth that grew from Bernadette Soubirous into the nonsense that is Lourdes today is not such a candidate.

  5. It’s fairly easy to show that any postulated chain of cause and effect, such as that suggested by Ingersoll, can be broken any number of times by humans and so there’s n o reason to suppose God would be any more bound by it than we are.
    A simple example to show this: if my behaviour was governed by a causal chain stretching back even five minutes then someone should be able to guess, eg, which number between 1-1000 I will NOT say five seconds after hearing the guess. But given that this cannot be done (because I’ll just say whichever number the guesser says I won’t), it’s clear that human behaviour cannot be determined by any chain of cause and effect. Anyone who wants to maintain that there is such a determining causal chain would then need to explain why it’s impossible to guess some past state of this causal chain when a human is involved – something that is easy to guess correctly when no human is involved.

  6. ‘Evidence of a discontinuity would be something to consider. Any event that “violated” the idea that the universe has regular properties or “laws” would be a candidate.

    The myth that grew from Bernadette Soubirous into the nonsense that is Lourdes today is not such a candidate.’

    http://www.faithandfamily.org......raynor.htm

    Well, Alan Fox, I suppose Jack Traynor’s cure and recovery was as all psychosomatic. The capacity of the human mind for self-delusion is evidently immense. That poor, deluded, old scouser, Jack. You’d wise him up in ragtime, wouldn’t you?

    ‘Anyone who wants to maintain that there is such a determining causal chain would then need to explain why it’s impossible to guess some past state of this causal chain when a human is involved – something that is easy to guess correctly when no human is involved.’

    Well, djockovic, a wily old bookmaker called William Hill, used to say, ‘Never bet on anything that can think.’

  7. Two quotes concerning miracles:

    John La Farge, a theologian and author, wrote: “For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible.”

    In a similar vein, Cardinal John Henry Newman, the brilliant and renowned Oxford graduate, remarked: “A miracle is no argu-ment to one who is deliberately, and on principle, an atheist.”

    To quote Newman again: “A miracle may be considered as an event inconsistent with the constitution of nature, that is, with the established course of things in which it is found; or, again, an event in a given system which cannot be referred to any law, or accounted for by the operation of any principle, in that system. “It does not necessarily imply a violation of nature, as some have supposed – merely the interposition of an external cause, which, we shall hereafter show, can be no other than the agency of the Deity. And the effect produced is that of an unused or increased action in the parts of the system.”

  8. “Is there any evidence that would convince you that the laws of Nature can be suspended, and that miracles do indeed occur?”

    I think you might replace “do” with “can”.

  9. vjtorley included this:

    I’d like to quote here from Dr. David Coppedge’s masterly online work, THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS From Y1K to Y2K:

    From which institution did David Coppedge receive his doctorate?

  10. “From which institution did David Coppedge receive his doctorate?”

    Instead of ever addressing the meet of the argument, character assassination is a fairly common tactic used by neo-Darwinists, and atheists in general;

    Argument Ad Hominem? (William Lane Craig) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg

    William Lane Craig and the Meaning of Ad Hominem Attacks – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrVGuUsL2PM

    David Coppedge, despite a stellar record at NASA, was, IMHO, singled out and fired from NASA because of his ID beliefs:

    Performance Reviews Support David Coppedge’s Claim that NASA Punished Him for Advocating Intelligent Design
    David Klinghoffer March 22, 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....57781.html

    Bias against ID proponents is systematic within academia: i.e. Though the evidence against neo-Darwinian evolution is overwhelming, anyone who dares question the sufficiency of Darwinism to explain all life on earth in the public school classroom is persecuted, as this following movie/documentary, book, and article, clearly point out:

    EXPELLED – Starring Ben Stein – Part 1 of 10 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAAh_6OXg

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405

    Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

    Academic Freedom Under Fire — Again! – October 2010
    Excerpt: All Dr. Avital wanted to do was expose students to some of the weaknesses inherent in Darwin’s theory. Surely there’s no harm in that — or so one would think. But, of course, to the Darwinian faithful, such weaknesses apparently do not exist.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38911.html

    Here Dr. Behe relates how the president of the National Academy of Sciences sought to ostracize him for supporting Intelligent Design:

    TEDxLehighU – Michael Behe – Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCP9UDFNHlo

  11. BA posted a lot but did not answer the question.

    vjtorley referred to David Coppedge as “Dr. David Coppedge” [sic]. David Coppedge does not list a doctorate as one of his qualifications in his online curriculum vitae at LinkedIn.

    Hence my question.

  12. Hi timothya,

    You are right. I’ve amended my post accordingly. Thanks for the correction. My apologies for the inadvertent error on my part.

  13. “BA posted a lot but did not answer the question.”

    And so is my suspicion/question unanswered by you as to why you would even care to focus on that one particular ‘question’ since David Coppedge, given his stellar record at NASA for managing very complex problems, is very capable of writing a overall summary on “THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS From Y1K to Y2K”. This question seems especially relevant since there are far meatier issues that Dr. Torley has addressed and especially given the history of persecution that atheists/Darwinists have against David Coppedge.

    Background on David Coppedge and the Lawsuit Against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    http://www.discovery.org/a/14511

  14. Alan Fox:
    Evidence of a discontinuity would be something to consider.

    We see that between living organisms and non-living matter.

    Any event that “violated” the idea that the universe has regular properties or “laws” would be a candidate.

    How did the universe come by those “regular properties” or “laws”?

  15. ‘”Evidence of a discontinuity would be something to consider.”

    We see that between living organisms and non-living matter.

    Excellent point, Joe.’ QED with bells on and in spades.

    ‘Any event that “violated” the idea that the universe has regular properties or “laws” would be a candidate.

    How did the universe come by those “regular properties” or “laws”?’

    Don’t be nasty…

  16. ‘Is there any evidence that would convince you that the laws of Nature can be suspended, and that miracles do indeed occur?’

    ‘I think you might replace “do” with “can”.’

    Better if you don’t try to think discursively, Sequenere. ‘Think’ and ‘might’, ‘won’t butter the parsnips’, d’ye ken? Just not apt agents of good counsel.

  17. Unless, of course, it’s a wry circumlocution; in which case it’s just dumb.

  18. Would Fatima qualify?

    The Miracle of the Sun

  19. Here’s a question for skeptics. Is there any evidence that would convince you that the laws of Nature can be suspended, and that miracles do indeed occur?

    Now that would be a miracle.

  20. 21

    Bornagain, I agree on the shroud of turin. First of all it confirms the gospel narratives of the passion of Christ to the tea, which is leading more and more researchers to side of its authenticity.

    Secondly, the image contains so many unique Characteristics like X-ray information, 3d spatial information, lack of weight pressure on the backside shroud image that corresponds to a lack of gravity, and these are just some of the many unique characteristics that make the shroud one of the most scientifically studied objects on earth.

    Here is a very good study on the possible position of the body at the moment of image formation by one of the sturp scientists.

    http://www.acheiropoietos.info.....oieWeb.pdf

    But in my opinion one of the most underlooked and amazing aspects of the shroud are the pristine blood clots found on the shroud.
    How do you get a body off a cloth naturally without breaking or smearing the blood clots. They can’t even find breakage or smearing atbamicroscopic level, and neither can they find any microscopic tears of the shrouds fibers underlying the blood clots.

    Here is a more recent presentation given by a Dr. J. Wayne Phillips
    Who explains this in better detail.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcKTkjWkqEU

    I would say that the shroud of turin gives very reasonable evidence for a miracle taking place, but most dogmatic atheists when presented with the shroud in a cogent manner will turn against science, logic and reason to hold onto a worldview that has no reason, no hope , no love and no purpose.
    This is why I have always believed that atheism at its core is a rebellious and emotional worldview and not an intellectual one.

  21. Why thank you wallstreeter43, you’ve just given me something interesting to do later on this afternoon! :)

  22. 23

    Your very welcome my friend, it’s only fair that I return the favor, as I’ve been following your posts for a while ;)

  23. 25

    Buffalo, interesting, now I’ve got something to do this evening :)
    Also Buffalo, check out the miracle of lanciano
    http://www.therealpresence.org.....ciano.html
    Which also tested AB for the blood type

    http://www.therealpresence.org.....ciano.html

  24. 26

    Or how about Doctor Pim Van Lommel the materialist Doctor who changed his mind about Nde’s and the afterlife after conducting an extensive research I to this area.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOeLJCdHojU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1k4fwWZMwI

  25. 27

    @wallstreeter43:
    NDE are dangerous territory bordering on worshipping Satan:

    (…) Certainly the Bible leaves no room for considering near-death experiences as a prelude to life after death. King Solomon’s description of death and its effects has no hints of an immortal soul surviving into some other form of conscious existence. The dead “are conscious of nothing at all.”
    Of course, those who practice spiritism and communication with the “dead” are only too pleased to have the apparent support of hundreds of near-death experiences. (…)
    How, then, can all the near-death and out-of-body experiences be explained? (…)
    It is a factor that most investigators will not admit. For example, Dr. Moody explained in his book Life After Life that “rarely, someone . . . has proposed demonic explanations of near-death experiences, suggesting that the experiences were doubtless directed by inimical forces.” (…)

    “Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness.” (2 Corinthians 11:14, 15) If he can perpetuate the basic lie that he has always maintained—“You positively will not die”—he can do it through the apparently most innocent and enlightening means.—Genesis 3:4, 5.

    As for the so called shroud of turin:

    It is not surprising that, despite its lack of authenticity, the shroud would remain a powerful symbol of faith for the Catholic Church. “Statues, paintings and icons . . . are given a revered place in Catholic practice,” notes The New York Times.
    Does the Bible support the use of such images in worship? No! God’s Word clearly says: “Flee from idolatry.” (1 Corinthians 10:14; compare Exodus 20:4-6.) Christians are admonished to worship God “with spirit and truth,” not with the help of some image or relic. (John 4:24) Appropriately, Paul wrote that true Christians “are walking by faith, not by sight.”—2 Corinthians 5:7.

    “There is no evidence of a shroud during the first centuries of the Christian era,” says the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

  26. as to:

    Certainly the Bible leaves no room for considering near-death experiences as a prelude to life after death.

    I beg to differ:

    2 Corinthians 12:3-5
    And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows– was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.

    As to you questioning the antiquity of the Shroud:

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 test proves false (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating:

    Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers
    per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)
    Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
    http://www.ntskeptics.org/issu.....oudold.htm

    Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory:

    Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review
    Excerpt: Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today.
    http://shroudofturin.wordpress.....s-of-time/

    This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which completely confirms the Rogers’ paper:

    “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
    Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case……. LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. – Robert Villarreal – Los Alamos National Laboratory
    http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/

    Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review – Robert Villarreal – Press Release video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193

    THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE – Evidence of Authenticity
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    Shroud Of Turin – Sewn From Two Pieces – 2000 Years Old – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101

    The Sudarium of Oviedo
    http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm

    Botanical Evidence Indicates “Shroud Of Turin” Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....073154.htm

  27. 29

    @bornagain77:
    All the claims you have posted about the “shroud of turin” have been debunked: http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

    Now let’s look at 2 Co 12:3-5

    12:1-4—Who “was caught away into paradise”? Since the Bible does not speak of any other person who had such a vision and the passage follows Paul’s defense of his apostleship, he was probably relating his own experience. What the apostle envisioned was likely the spiritual paradise enjoyed by the Christian congregation in “the time of the end.”—Dan. 12:4.

    A person whom Jehovah put in a trance was evidently absorbed in a state of deep concentration, though at least partially awake. (Compare Acts 10:9-16.) In the Bible the Greek word rendered “trance” (ek?sta·sis) means ‘a putting away or a displacement.’ It suggests the idea of throwing the mind out of its normal state. Thus, a person in a trance would be oblivious of his surroundings while being fully receptive to the vision. The apostle Paul was likely in such a trance when he was “caught away into paradise and heard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak.”—2 Corinthians 12:2-4.
    In contrast with those who transcribed dictated messages from God, Bible writers who received visions or dreams or who experienced trances often had some latitude to describe in their own words what they saw. Habakkuk was told: “Write down the vision, and set it out plainly upon tablets, in order that the one reading aloud from it may do so fluently.”—Habakkuk 2:2.

    Third Heaven. At 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 the apostle Paul describes one who was “caught away . . . to the third heaven” and “into paradise.” Since there is no mention in the Scriptures of any other person having had such an experience, it seems likely that this was the apostle’s own experience. Whereas some have endeavored to relate Paul’s reference to the third heaven to the early rabbinic view that there were stages of heaven, even a total of “seven heavens,” this view finds no support in the Scriptures. As we have seen, the heavens are not referred to specifically as if divided into platforms or stages, but, rather, the context must be relied upon to determine whether reference is to the heavens within earth’s atmospheric expanse, the heavens of outer space, the spiritual heavens, or something else. It therefore appears that the reference to “the third heaven” indicates the superlative degree of the rapture in which this vision was seen. Note the way words and expressions are repeated three times at Isaiah 6:3; Ezekiel 21:27; John 21:15-17; Revelation 4:8, evidently for the purpose of expressing an intensification of the quality or idea.

  28. Excuse me JWTruthInLove, the Shroud is far from debunked, in fact when the site you reference featured the infamous McCrone as its lead off ‘debunker’, I know that for a fact that you have not considered this matter fairly because McCrone is far from a unbiased interlocutor in all this.

    “Walter McCrone claimed that he was “drummed out” of STURP for his disagreeing with the other scientists that he thought of as true believers. The truth of the matter was that he refused to accept STURP’s professional standards agreement. In his dreams he was a member of STURP.”
    http://shroudstory.com/2011/09/23/more-on-mccrone/

    As for you claiming that NDE’s are ‘demonic’, well what really can be said in response to such a a priori bias? Certainly empirical evidence cannot stand against such reasoning! :) ,,, None-the-less, I hold that you are wrong in your bias.

  29. far from a unbiased interlocutor

    As opposed to…?

  30. So you got LT backing you up JWT? HMMM, strange bedfellows!

    LT asks: “far from a unbiased interlocutor,,, As opposed to…?”

    Well it sure wouldn’t be LT or yours truly would it now LT?

    I would say Raymond Rogers was as close to a unbiased researcher as one could hope for in his analysis of the Shroud (in fact I would say he was strongly weighted against the Shroud being real but not dogmatically so):

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 test proves false (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    Moreover, the hypothesis that the Shroud was painted by a forger, as McCrone dogmatically holds, was the first hypothesis that was tested for and falsified by the STURP team. Barry Schwartz, a Jewish man who was photographer on the STURP team, who took microscopic photographs of the shroud, and who is certainly not given to undo bias, is adamant that the image on the shroud, whatever it is, is certainly not the result of painting or dyes:

    Moreover this research came out a bit over a year ago trying to replicate the exact coloring of the threads of the Shroud:

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    further notes:

    Journal of Imaging Science and Technology – Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. “Comparison of Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.” 46: 142-154 (2002);
    All the photographs except that of the Edessa Mandylion show some 3D characteristics and the Shroud photographs, although disturbed by many defects, seem to correlate well with the sheet-face distance.
    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=a.....t=13657013

    How Did The Image Form On The Shroud? – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045581

    “The shroud image is made from tiny fibres that are (each) 1/10th of a human hair. The picture elements are actually randomly distributed like the dots in your newspaper, photograph or magazine photograph. To do this you would need an incredibly accurate atomic laser. This technology does NOT exist (even to this day).”
    Kevin Moran – Optical Engineer

    Scientific hypotheses on the origin of the body image of the Shroud – 2010
    Excerpt: for example, if we consider the density of radiation that we used to color a single square centimeter of linen, to reproduce the entire image of the Shroud with a single flash of light would require fourteen thousand lasers firing simultaneously each on a different area of linen. In other words, it would take a laser light source the size of an entire building.
    http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_22597_l3.htm

    “the closest science can come to explaining how the image of the Man in the Shroud got there is by comparing the situation to a controlled burst of high-intensity radiation similar to the Hiroshima bomb explosion which “printed” images of incinerated people on building walls.”
    Frank Tribbe – Leading Scholar And Author On Shroud Research

    Q: Why can’t the Shroud just be be a medieval painting?
    A: The image is also extremely faint, fading away completely if you get closer than about six feet, so it would have been like trying to paint an enormous canvas in invisible ink.

  31. As to Near Death Experiences being real, JWT quoted some unreferenced source as saying, among other things:

    King Solomon’s description of death and its effects has no hints of an immortal soul surviving into some other form of conscious existence. The dead “are conscious of nothing at all.”

    Okie Dokie JWT, I’ll take your King Solomon and raise you a King of King and Lord Of Lords, i.e. Jesus:

    Mark 12:26-27
    Now about the dead rising–have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

    Luke 23:43
    Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

  32. 34

    JWtruthinlove, it’s apparent that you have done absolutely no research at all on the shroud .

    If you did then you would realize that Walter Mccrone never got any of his findings to pass peer review, and his opinions of the blood being paint were just that, his opinions. If you had bothered to check the peer reviewed work of doctor Adler who is a blood chemist , who did all of the advanced chemical analysis tests on the blood you would have known that what they found was that the blood stains were blood, this is a fact supported by peer reviewed science, not the opinion of one man . No other scientists saw what Mccrone saw simply because what he saw wasn’t there.

    Mccrone couldn’t get one paper passed through peer review because his work wasn’t real science. The on,y place they were published were in a non peer reviewed skeptic magazine, and also his magazine of which he is owner, editor and chief lol.

    Moreover the skeptic site you found probably after a whole 1 minute of research says that there was no mention of the shroud before 1352, which is simply ignorant because the Hungarian pray codex which shows an illustration of what is clearly the shroud of turin with the 4 poker burn holes is from 1192 to 1195, and that alone debunks that skeptic sites history of the shroud, not counting that the blood stains on the shroud are a perfect match with the blood stains on the sudarium of oveido, and the sudarium’s history is undisputed going all the way back to 6th century. Forensic science tells us that shroud and sudarium covered that same body , but at a close time interval of between 45 minutes to an hour.

    If you read your history of the mandylion , or as it is also called, the image of eddessa, it was written about as being folded twice in fours, and that image’s history goes back to the mid 500′s ad, and it was also written that this image was kept in the cave of saint mark in Jerusalem until it was moved to eddessa in the 6th century.

    When professor Jackson of the sturp team did his sofisticated light raking test over the shroud he found the same exact fold marksthat when folded in this way came out exactly like the mandylion was folded in which only the head image was showing.

    If you had also taken the time to search the peer reviewed papers instead of looking through an unpeerreviewed skeptic site, you would have seen that professor Ray Rogers who was a chemist and senior fellow at the very prestigious Los alamos labs, you would have seen that his peer reviewed work published in thermochimica acta, a chemical journal completely invalidated the c14 testing done on the shroud, because Rogers showed from his chemical analysis that the piece tested by the c14 labs was from a much newer French or invisible reweave.

    Rogers also did a vanillin test on the c14 piece and found out that it tested positive for vanillin (which makes it much newer ), and then redid the test on strands taken from all the other areas of the shroud and no other part of the shroud tested positive for vanillin, meaning the shroud was much older then the c14 tests showed it to be, and in fact from the vanillin tests alone Rogers gave it a date of between 1300 to 3000 years old.

    There are many other evidences for the shroud being the burial shroud of our lord and savior, but this blog doesn’t have enough pages to hold this info.

    Again, your post shows me that I haven’t done any true research on the shroud.
    I was originally a skeptic of the shroud but after 4 years of research I true believe that it’s the burial cloth of our lord and savior and bares the imprint of his resurrection.

    If your not afraid of the truth my friend, then u should really research the shroud like I have. Atheists are very afraid to do , but your not an atheist, so what’s your excuse.

    God bless

  33. 35

    Liar tanner, as opposed to someone who hasn’t done his shroud research like you or JW. ;)

    Solid Research like Stephen Jones has done on his blog
    http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/?m=1

    And on his archived website
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/shroudot.html

    This is a good starting place. If your an atheist , please stay away from the hundreds of peer reviewed shroud research papers as it would be hazardous for your emotionally based worldview.

  34. Well, I would say I’m more neutral than you, BA. I have no particular investment in whatever anyone discovers about the shroud–or doesn’t.

    Nevertheless, the current state of research seems to be that no one knows how the image on the shroud got there, yet medieval artistry remains the leading explanation.

    Joe Nickell has a write-up on the 2011 Di Lazzaro findings:

    As reported in the UK Independent of December 21, 2011, scientists working for the Italian government have claimed to find evidence that the image of Jesus crucified appearing on the notorious Shroud of Turin was not produced by a medieval artist but instead was likely caused by a supernatural event.

    Unfortunately, their work violates so many principles of science and logic as to raise serious questions about their motivation. It recalled to mind a cartoon that circulated many years ago, depicting a shroudologist at a blackboard on which were chalked several lines of mathematical calculations, followed by the phrase, “and then a miracle occurs!” Now Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro—lead researcher for the team from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy, and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA)—embodies that cartoon image.

  35. I was originally a skeptic of the shroud but after 4 years of research I true believe that it’s the burial cloth of our lord and savior and bares the imprint of his resurrection.

    Hallelujah for skepticism, in the name of our lord and savior!

  36. 38

    Ipad typo, I meant to say lartanner, for some reason my ipadmini keeps trying to spell things on its own.
    My apologies

  37. 39

    Lars, I never needed the shroud for my faith. The conclusion I came to were based on my research into the history of the shroud, as well as the peer reviewed scientific literature.

    I can see that your committing the same folly that every atheist has committed when it comes to the shroud. You have abandoned science, logic and reason because the evidence makes you feel uncomfortable. If you have nothing invested in the shroud then why did you bring up Joe Nickells claims.

    I wasn’t joking when I said I have researched the shroud for 4 years and one of the sites I went to was ciscops (joe nickells site).
    Now before we go any further my non scientific atheist friend, please share this with everyone here.
    If you can even show me what 2 year degree in any scientific area that Joe nickell has then maybe you might have someone with a little bit of legitimacy on your side .

    Nickell was arguing chemistry with Ray Rogers and he got schooled. Nickell is nothing but a pseudo skeptic masquerading as a scientist. He’s even worse than Mccrone lol.
    If you like getting your info from non peer reviewed sources than what can I say, except for I TOLD YOU GUYS.

    Next time Lars, do yourself some justice by researching the peer reviewed literature instead of a quick 30 second googling with skeptic keywords inserted, but if your comfortable with your atheism, stay away from the shroud, STAY FAR AWAY.

    Or you can use another common atheist response , you can call it a magical, dirty old rag and laugh away the evidence.

    The fact is the shroud corresponds perfectly with the passion and crucifixion of Christ.

  38. “Well, I would say I’m more neutral than you, BA.”

    That statement coming from a dogmatic neo-Darwinist like you, who remains so in spite of the overwhelming evidence coming forth to the contrary is a laugh :) , You are literally a poster child for atheistic bias!

    As to your snide reference from a atheist website that stated:

    “and then a miracle occurs!”

    Excuse me LT, a MIRACLE is precisely what is claimed to have happened if you hadn’t noticed!

    Moreover, two can play at that game:

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

  39. Wallstreet,

    OK, I’ll bite. How exactly does it correspond “perfectly with the passion and crucifixion of Christ”? I’m sorry, but I’m not going to research the thing because I really don’t care.

    Nickell questioned the research methods of the study. Seemed like he brought up some fair points. I haven’t read the rebuttal of the researchers, nor have I read the results of studies that have duplicated the 2011 tests.

    As far as I know, it remains true that no one knows how the image on the shroud got there. Medieval artistry also seems to remain the leading candidate for plausible explanation.

  40. “Medieval artistry also seems to remain the leading candidate for plausible explanation.”

    No it is not, do your research as Wallstreeter suggested!

  41. 43

    Lars, haaahahaha, you have nothing invested in the shroud yet you claim that the medieval theory is the leading one so far lol.
    Inthink my posts already show that you haven’t done your homework and all of the evidence is against it being a medieval forgers and is in fact on the side of authenticity.

    Your post has shown that you do have a lot invested in it , 1 because you haven’t done any research at all, and 2. You haven’t given a response to any of the Posts I have provided, especially the evidence that comes from peer reviewed research.

    When it comes to the shroud atheists suddenly become allergic to peer reviewed science,and from your posts, to objectivity as well.

    Oh and by the way Ray Rogers is an agnostic so he was actually against the shrouds authenticity and accepted the c14 tests, until this lady named Sue Benford , who claimed that Jesus spoke to her Ina vision about this, and she wrote to Rogers telling him that she believed that the C14 piece was from a reweaving.

    Rogers as a scientist who stated publicly that he is a man of science that doesn’t believe in the supernatural, considered Benford to be from what he called the anti science lunatic fringe. He said he still has some samples from the area, and could disprove her in 5 minutes. What he found shocked him. He found that sue Benford was absolutely right, which led to his peer reviewed research in thermochimica acta. Even though Rogers is an agnostic who doesn’t believe in miracles, he still was objective enough to follow the evidence to where it took him. This really shook him up.

    Lars your still a youngster on this subject. If you want to at least appear to know what your talking about I would suggest first to start researching the over 300 peer reviewed papers on the shroud from shroud.com.
    Almost all of the peer review literature lean towards authenticity, and the few that believe that it is a middle age forgery are considered in the same league as the flat earth society.

    Good luck on ur research , but if you don’t want to research it, I can understand as being wrong about your worldview is an uncomfortable thing, but for the life of me I could never understand why someone would comfortably cling to a worldview that has no hope, no love, no meaning and no purpose if they were presented with evidence that shows there is meaning, hope and purpose.

    Ah well, to each their own.
    You can lead a horse to water… Errr, well you know the rest

    Viva joe nickell , the guy with not even a 2 year science degree bravooooooo!!!!!!

  42. 44

    Lars again, it’s amazing that you keep making the same middle age claim knowing that it has been debunked a long time ago.
    The Hungarian pray codex debunks it
    The vanillin tests debunk it
    The folding match with the mandylion show it
    The perfect blood stain match of the sudarium prove it

    Nickell claimed to be able to make the image with powders and also a statue, he didn’t even come close.
    You haven’t addressed one of my posts, and you don’t care to research them because you fear they will cause you stress about your worldview.
    Why are you constently arguing from a point of ignorance.

    If I’m ignorant about something I either will get up to par on it,or I won’t post.
    The scientific community would laugh if you brought them a non science expert like nickell or someone like Mccrone who can’t get a paper to pass through peer review.

    It’s amazing how far atheists will go to cling to their worldview, even abandon their precious science to do it.

    Lars my advice for u is to quite whole your behind and go to subject that you have some knowledge about.

  43. As to a viable mechanism being in place to make a image on a Shroud, I hold that we now have evidence for such a plausible mechanism:

    First to recap what is facing us about the nature of the image:

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    Now as to a viable mechanism being in place:

    Cellular Communication through Light
    Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0005086

    Biophotons – The Light In Our Cells – Marco Bischof – March 2005
    Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism.
    http://www.international-light.....hotons.pdf

    Are humans really beings of light?
    Excerpt: “We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.”,,, “There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon… Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions… We are swimming in an ocean of light.”
    http://viewzone2.com/dna.html

    The mechanism and properties of bio-photon emission and absorption in protein molecules in living systems – May 2012
    Excerpt: From the energy spectra, it was determined that the protein molecules could both radiate and absorb bio-photons with wavelengths of less than 3??m and 5–7??m, consistent with the energy level transitions of the excitons.,,,
    http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/.....horized=no

    Moreover, to add weight to the plausibility, proteins are now found to conduct electricity far better than manmade conductors do,,,

    Proteins Conduct Electricity – November 25, 2012
    Excerpt: “The team showed that the protein could carry large currents, equivalent to a human hair carrying one amp. The team also discovered that current flow could be regulated in much the same way as transistors, the tiny devices driving computers and smartphones, work but on a smaller scale: the proteins are only a quarter of the size of current silicon based transistors.”
    The finding represents a leap forward in measurement at the nano scale. “Prior to this work, measurement of millions, if not billions of proteins was only possible, so losing crucial details of how an individual molecule functions.” The team used scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) to read the electronics of a single molecule of cytochrome b562, a protein just 5 nanometers (billions of a meter) long.
    http://crev.info/2012/11/prote.....ectricity/

    Of note: AWG 44 wire is the wire size that is equivalent to the width of a human hair,,

    Measurements and Gauge
    Excerpt: An AWG # 44 wire is about the thickness of a human hair.
    http://unimaxsupply.com/prc/pi.....ements.htm

    And AWG 44 wire is rated at well below the .014 Ampacity, the last Ampacity they have listed, for AWG 40 wire,,,

    AWG Wire Table, AWG Copper Wire Gauge Chart
    http://www.interfacebus.com/Co....._SIze.html

    Thus, since 1 divided by .010 is 100, the ampacity (current carrying capacity) for the protein they measured is at least 100 times better than a copper or silver wire would be compared at the size of a human hair.

    Also of note: The best manmade (intelligently designed) conductor of electricity beats copper and silver by only 30 to 50 times:

    Graphene: How It Will Change the Future – Apr 12, 2012
    Excerpt: Copper is a great conductor of electricity and heat. Only silver beats copper (by less than 10%). That is why we use copper wires to transmit electricity and data, and copper pots are prized by cooks.
    Graphene conducts heat and electricity 30-50 times better than copper and silver: electrons flowing in graphene travel near the speed of light.
    http://finchin.com/graphene-in-plain-english/

  44. You folks are insane. Look, all you need to tell me is that the shroud fabric is dated reliably to the time and place where Jesus was buried. Is that what your sources say? Is that the general consensus?

    I’d imagine there’s lots of cultural data on how Jews were shrouded and buried in common-era Palestine that would be helpful here. Tell me about that. Surely there are other shrouds from the same time and place that can be used help establish the specific authenticity of the Turin one.

    As for the image itself, well I don’t know what it tells us. Apparently it’s the image of some guy. Okay. So what?

    I have no truck with Nickell or anyone else. He makes an argument that the 2011 study is shoddy science. Is it really shoddy science? Maybe not. I don’t care. The next studies that duplicate the 2011 one will help validate it or not.

    I read a bit of the Rogers stuff. He made no supernatural claims. He criticized the methods used in dating the Shroud back in 1988. Good job. Just what he was supposed to do.

    I just don’t see how anything about the shroud amounts to a hill of beans. Sorry to have incurred your wrath. I just thought it was funny to have BA of all people jumping up and down about bias. No offense, BA. I think you do a lot of great research and you’re certainly passionate about your beliefs and anti-atheism, but unbiased you are not.

  45. 47

    @bornagain77

    Am I correct to assume that you are a trinitarian? In case you’re a trinitarian: Do you think that someone could be a Christian without having a belief in the so called trinity?

    Apropos “bedfellow”: Of similar interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....e_Avon_Ltd

    @your posting 33

    God will reestablish paradise here on earth:

    Jesus promised a dying man who courageously expressed faith in him: “You will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) Where would the man be? Would Paradise be located in heaven, on earth, or at some intermediate location where humans await judgment?

    Our ancestors once lived in Paradise. The Bible tells us: “Jehovah God planted a garden in Eden, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. . . . And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it.” (Genesis 2:8, 15) When those words were translated into Greek, the word “garden” was rendered pa·ra?dei·sos, from which came the English word “paradise.”

    Just as a couple would enlarge their home when they have more children, so our first parents were expected to expand Paradise beyond the borders of Eden as the human family grew. God told them: “Fill the earth and subdue it.”—Genesis 1:28.

    Our Creator’s purpose, then, was for humans to live and bear children in Paradise here on earth. They would live forever in an earthly garden with no need for any cemeteries. The earth was to become the permanent home for all mankind. No wonder the natural features of our planet bring us so much delight! We were created to live on a beautiful earth.

    Has God’s purpose changed? No. For Jehovah assures us: “So my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted.” (Isaiah 55:11) Over 3,000 years after man’s creation, the Bible stated regarding “the Former of the earth and the Maker of it” that he “did not create it simply for nothing,” but he “formed it even to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 45:18) God’s will has not changed. The earth will yet be a paradise.

    Interestingly, many Bible passages about Paradise are simply descriptions of life on earth. For example, a prophecy of Isaiah states: “They will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.” (Isaiah 65:21) Where are houses built and vineyards planted? Where is fruit eaten? On the earth. Proverbs 2:21 explicitly states: “The upright are the ones that will reside in the earth.”

    Jesus too spoke about an earthly paradise. True, he also promised a heavenly paradise, but that was for a select few. (Luke 12:32) After death, these are resurrected to the heavenly Paradise and join Christ to rule over the earthly Paradise. (Revelation 5:10; 14:1-3) These heavenly corulers will ensure that Paradise on earth will be properly governed and maintained according to God’s standards.
    Jesus knew that this was God’s will for the earth. After all, he was in heaven with his Father when the garden of Eden was created. Life in a future earthly paradise is open to all people who exercise faith today. (John 3:16) To such ones, Jesus promises: “You will be with me in Paradise.”—Luke 23:43.

  46. 48

    Actually, the shroud is 3 way herringbone weave, which prevalent in Jesus’ time not prevalent in the Middle Ages . As I said before the evidence points to its authenticity and not for it being from the Middle Ages . The pollens found on it point to it being in the Jerusalem region and the pollens found from the region are of plants that only bloomed in Jerusalem in the summer time. Rare microscopic limestone was found on the shroud that only is found in the to,bs of Jerusalem . To Truely understand the shroud you would really need to delve into all of these evidences to understand their significance for authenticity.

    Your claim that if we couldn’t get an accurate c14 reading on the shroud makes it a forgery is the thing that is Truely crazy. The first unofficial c14 dating placed it at 200 ad. The 88 testing broke 13 protocols that by themselves invalidated the testing itself.
    They didn’t even do a chemical analysis testing to make sure the sample was indicative of the rest of the shroud (something Rogers corrected for them later). The secular people in charge of the testing got the sturp team taken out, and also ignored their recommendations to have a chemical analysis test done on it.

    And anyone in archeology and the related sciences will tell u that you can’t determine the age of a relic from one piece of evidence. It must be an eclectic approach. Archeologists had ancient Egyptian relics found that c14 tests show to be from 1000 ad but every other piece of evidence shows it to be thousands of years older.

    Your comment is one from a person that is trying to sweep all of the evidence for authenticity under the rug, to try to muddy the waters a bit. This is a person in denial.

    The shroud can’t be duplicated in its entirety even with today’s technologies, let alone from the Middle Ages .
    The historic evidence shows it to be much older.
    Remember also if a shroud like this was found by the Pharisees and Romans during the first 300 years of Christianity we wouldn’t even be discussing the shroud here because it would have been destroyed.

    If you new anything about the sudarium or the mandylion you would know that they were always being moved ahead of invading armies through the early centuries. My guess is that you know diddly-squat about all this. I’ve already talked about the raking techniques used by the physicist professor Jackson that show the strong evidence of the shroud and mandylion being the same relic. You conveniently swept away this part of my post and went back to the middle age garbage theory which so far you have given no evidence for.

    Lars, please while you behind, because ill walk circles around you in this subject.
    I only recently found out about the shroud in 2009 because all the commotion atheists made when they thought someone successfully duplicated the shroud,and when this was proven wrong all of them went silent all of a sudden. It was their loudmouths that got the shroud on my radar to begin with. I guess God saw fit to use their ignorance for good ;)

    You Claimed the prevailing theory is that it’s a middle age frauds. Instead of shying away from that claim, please show us the evidence that made you believe.
    Ohhhh please show it to me so I can have a really fun day.

    I showed u my evidences for why it’s much older and in fact most if not all shroud researchers agree with me on this.
    Balls in your court.
    Mark antonacci tried to deconvert his Christian girlfriend the same way, starting with the shroud, 20 years later not only did he fail to deconvert her, but he converted to Christianity himself .

    If all the good evidence I presented to you is wrong then it should be very easy for u to debunk it. My guess is your gonna ignore it and call us crazy. This is how the vaunted intellect ofthe atheist works?
    Waiting eagerly :)
    Can’t wait to see you in church right next to me one day
    God bless

  47. wallstreeter43 – good posts. Indeed I am aware of the Eucharistic miracles.

    The evidence for the shroud is very compelling.

    Did you catch this one on the shroud?

    Divine Mercy and Shroud of Turin

    Here we have the description of an image an uneducated Polish peasant girl saw of Jesus then painted by an artist, superimposed on the shroud.

  48. Hi bornagain77 and wallstreeter43,

    Thanks for the new links and information on the Shroud of Turin. I’ll check them out.

  49. JWT, I noticed you stealthly avoided trying to say the Shroud was a fake again, what’s a matter? don’t you want to back up your dogmatic atheistic compadre LT? Strange company you are keeping LT to defend your supposedly theistic beliefs!

    Of note: The Sadducees, who like you did not believe in life after death, tried to trap Jesus with a trick question. His answer to them was brilliant. To see the full context of the situation, watch this video starting around the 18 minute mark to see how far out of line you are with what Jesus’ actually taught about life after death:

    Love God with All Your Mind (JP Moreland) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=961s

  50. LT states: “Surely there are other shrouds from the same time and place that can be used help establish the specific authenticity of the Turin one.”

    Yep, there is:

    Shroud Of Turin – Sewn From Two Pieces – 2000 Years Old – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101

  51. Ok, wallstreeter. So I have a decent re-cap of what we are talking about, the main evidence is:
    (1) A three-way herringbone weave, prevalent in the ancient world, not in the medieval.
    (2) Distinctive Jerusalem-region pollens on the shroud. [Question: if they only bloomed in the summer, doesn't that make a Passover-time death rather early for pollen?]
    (3) Rare microscopic limestone that comes almost exclusively from Jerusalem.

    You say:

    To Truely understand the shroud you would really need to delve into all of these evidences to understand their significance for authenticity.

    Understood, but I don’t find this specific subject interesting, so I can’t see pursuing it much more.

    You then say:

    Your claim that if we couldn’t get an accurate c14 reading on the shroud makes it a forgery is the thing that is Truely crazy.

    I did not say this. I observed that Rogers faulted the 1988 study and its conclusions.

    Then you say:

    The first unofficial c14 dating placed it at 200 ad. The 88 testing broke 13 protocols that by themselves invalidated the testing itself.
    They didn’t even do a chemical analysis testing to make sure the sample was indicative of the rest of the shroud (something Rogers corrected for them later). The secular people in charge of the testing got the sturp team taken out, and also ignored their recommendations to have a chemical analysis test done on it.

    Intriguing.

    Next:

    And anyone in archeology and the related sciences will tell u that you can’t determine the age of a relic from one piece of evidence. It must be an eclectic approach. Archeologists had ancient Egyptian relics found that c14 tests show to be from 1000 ad but every other piece of evidence shows it to be thousands of years older.

    So far, based on everything you have presented, the implication seems to be that the dating places the shroud later than Second-temple era. You argue that the three items listed at the top hold more weight than scientific date estimates. I’m not criticizing or judging: just stating what your case seems to be.

    You say:

    Your comment is one from a person that is trying to sweep all of the evidence for authenticity under the rug, to try to muddy the waters a bit. This is a person in denial.

    I have admitted to not knowing the evidence before, so how could I sweep it under the rug. You were once skeptical, weren’t you? Can’t you understand why one would be hard-pressed to take an authenticity claim seriously? After all, you are saying that (a) the shroud was the one belonging to a specific human being in history and (b) that person was divine. Two extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

    Next:

    The shroud can’t be duplicated in its entirety even with today’s technologies, let alone from the Middle Ages.

    This needs to be teased out, but why is that so surprising? There’s much about the ancient world we don’t know and/or understand. They had technologies and sciences. We moderns tend to forget that before us was not ages upon ages of darkness and ignorance.

    More:

    The historic evidence shows it to be much older.

    Any historic evidence beyond the three items at the top? Otherwise, it feels like the punch-line is missing.

    Then:

    Remember also if a shroud like this was found by the Pharisees and Romans during the first 300 years of Christianity we wouldn’t even be discussing the shroud here because it would have been destroyed.

    Speculative, and so what?

    Next:

    If you new anything about the sudarium or the mandylion you would know that they were always being moved ahead of invading armies through the early centuries. My guess is that you know diddly-squat about all this.

    True. I know diddly-squat. So, since the burden of proof belongs to you, you’d need to explain the terms and how they relate at all to the subject.

    I’ve already talked about the raking techniques used by the physicist professor Jackson that show the strong evidence of the shroud and mandylion being the same relic. You conveniently swept away this part of my post and went back to the middle age garbage theory which so far you have given no evidence for.

    OK, sorry. What’s the point of the raking, then? Please feel free to elucidate.

    Now, you are boasting

    Lars, please while you behind, because ill walk circles around you in this subject.

    I’m sure you will “walk circles” around me. I’m already dizzy!

    I only recently found out about the shroud in 2009 because all the commotion atheists made when they thought someone successfully duplicated the shroud,and when this was proven wrong all of them went silent all of a sudden. It was their loudmouths that got the shroud on my radar to begin with. I guess God saw fit to use their ignorance for good ;)

    When you first learned about the shroud, how did you keep an objective stance toward it? Was there one piece of specific evidence that convinced you it was authentic, or one that stood above the rest?

    You Claimed the prevailing theory is that it’s a middle age frauds. Instead of shying away from that claim, please show us the evidence that made you believe.

    I claimed this as my understanding. But my understanding is of the shoddy work done in that the 2011 study that claimed something like an electromagnetic energy behind the image on the shroud. I also understood that a church historian reported that there were about 40 burial cloths in circulation in the medieval Christian world (Turkey, if I recall). Lombatti is the name of the scholar, I think.

    Ohhhh please show it to me so I can have a really fun day.

    Oh, please. Settle down.

    Finally:

    I showed u my evidences for why it’s much older and in fact most if not all shroud researchers agree with me on this.
    Balls in your court.

    Sorry, but you have not yet said anything that really stands out to me as compelling. The first three bits are the most compelling, but the arguments would have to be fleshed out a bit more. A three-way herringbone weave does not a holy relic make.

    Mark antonacci tried to deconvert his Christian girlfriend the same way, starting with the shroud, 20 years later not only did he fail to deconvert her, but he converted to Christianity himself.

    I’m married to a Christian and have three kids. I don’t know your friend Mark.

    If all the good evidence I presented to you is wrong then it should be very easy for u to debunk it. My guess is your gonna ignore it and call us crazy. This is how the vaunted intellect ofthe atheist works?
    Waiting eagerly :)
    Can’t wait to see you in church right next to me one day

    Again, sorry, but the evidence you have given isn’t so good. I understand you can’t go into every detail, but I’d really need a lot more than what you have here. Besides, I’m from a Jewish background. I could never, ever be a Christian. There’s no point. If I were to be convinced of any theism, it might be deism or back to Judaism.

  52. “I’m from a Jewish background. I could never, ever be a Christian.”

    Even if you find that Christianity is true you could not be a Christian?

    LT your dogmatic bias is showing again!

  53. As well LT, are not you the least bit curious as to how the resurrection of Christ could offer a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? Or is this just another one of those inconvenient ‘coincidences’ that are best left ignored by intellectual atheists?

    Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

  54. BA,

    I have biases and even dogma. It’s true. I’m not ashamed of them at all and make no attempt to hide them.

    Please don’t think you are somehow less biased and dogmatic. You are not.

    I’ve actually pained myself to read some of that stuff you link to that–ahem–reconciles all the yatta-yatta. Is it OK if I don’t take the inferential leaps you do?

    At some point, people in this world simply have to realize that some perspectives are irreconcilable. I don’t mind that you see Jesus in the toast of quantum mechanics, why do you mind that I don’t?

  55. Well LT, I’m just curious as to how you can so easily dismiss a ‘myth’ fitting such a foundational puzzle of modern science. The resurrection of Christ should not even be on the radar scope of reason as to supplying a very plausible reconciliation of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics! Not even by a long shot should this be as credible as it is to the number one problem of science! ,,, And yet you sniff in your usual dogmatic atheistic style (as you do at all the unfathomed complexity in biological life) as if this is a burnt ‘toast’ image we are trying to sell you. You MUST BE MAD!

  56. “Please don’t think you are somehow less biased and dogmatic”

    Actually LT, I started out thinking that Darwinism was true to some extent, and had to carefully study the evidence for years to realize that Darwinism has ZERO substantiating evidence for ‘vertical evolution’. So I guess since I was open to the evidence leading either way, that would, contrary to what you believe, make me less dogmatic than you! And still you can still show me one molecular machine produced by Darwinian processes and I would admit I am wrong, but there is no such threshold with you. As far as I can tell you are pretty immune to what the evidence says and believe what you want to believe no matter what!

  57. 59

    LT, if you want a good refutation of lombatti, Stephen Jones has already thoroughly debunked him. Yes there were duplicates of the shroud made in the Middle Ages, but those were clearly paintings and were well known as duplicates, possessing none of the unique characteristics the shroud has.

    Nobody knew of these unique characteristics until segundo pia was commissioned to take the first photographs of the shroud in 1898. As he developed his negative plates what he saw on them shocked him in such a way that he almost dropped the plates.

    Instead of a negative appearing on the plates, a positive image appeared, and this was when scientists of all fields converged on it.
    Some scientists even theorized that the shroud possessed 3d information, but that wasn’t proven until I believe the late 1970′s or 1980′s when physicist John Jackson of NASA passed a picture of the shroud through a sofisticated divice called the vp8 image analyzer. The vp8 is used to map out the terrain in 3d of the surface of mars and the moon. If you pass any regular photo through it , the picture comes out all mumbled and messed up, when they passed a picture of the shroud through it, a perfect 3d image came out of a body and face. The shroud of turin is the only 2d image on earth that is encoded with 3d spatial information on it. No middle age forger could have done this.

    As far as staying objective, it was a bit hard at the beginning because I’ve seen many relics come and go, but as the scientific and historic evidence kept coming in, my confidence in the shroud kept growing.

    The sturp team having people on it from all worldviews was also the best thing that could have been done for shroud research. There was a large concentration of agnostics on the team (I believe 25%).

    One agnostic on the team was August Accetta who grew up in a Christian family but grew to believe that Christianity and religion in general was just a way people used for making themselves feel. Comfortable with death when they got older. His conversion started with the shroud and he came back to Christ through many years of shroud research and his studies of the gospel.

    This is his website
    http://www.shroudcentersocal.com/founder.html
    Dr. Accetta has published four peer-reviewed papers on the Shroud in the area of Nuclear Imaging, while collaborating with a number of high ranking medical colleagues. He maintains regular contact worldwide with the principal researchers and leading authors pertaining to the Shroud.

    His research came closest to duplicating the some of the many unique characteristics of the shroud image and it was in nuclear imaging.
    He had the guts to put his body on the line by ingesting potentially harmfull radiation in a gamma radiation hunch. The shroud has converted many open minded agnostics.

    Professor Jackson’s wife rebecca was an Orthodox Jew who was the expert in ancient
    Jewish burial customs. She also converted to Christianity through her research of the shroud.

  58. WOW Wallstreeter, I going to have to take a few hours to go through your notes and collect all your references together in one spot.

  59. 61

    Vjturley your very welcome my friend :), I also got a bit more coming
    Wall

  60. 62

    Vjturley your very welcome my friend :), I also got a bit more coming
    Wall

    Cool bornagain, when I started researching the shroud 4 years back, I decided that I would start with the skeptic sites first so that I would know both sides of the story, and they screamed the loudest lol. When I was done, it was amazing how flimsy the evidence was from the skeptic’s side.

    The more pro authenticy evidence I found the more obsessed I became with it.
    BA777, I’m not sure if I left a link to Stephen

  61. 63

    Oops, I was having some problems with my posts here.
    Not sure if I left the links to Stephen Jones sites but he has some of the information on the shroud of turin.

    http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/?m=1
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/shroudot.html

    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....l.html?m=1
    He also has an excellent article about John Jackson’s cloth collapse theory, in which John Jackson predicted that there would be a smaller, fainter secondary back image on the back of the cloth, and when they took off the back stitching years later a smaller image of Jesus’s face was found.
    The cloth collapse theory predicts that the man on the shroud had passed through the shroud during its image formation . Remember the video presentation link on YouTube I posted. It talks about how the blood clots on the shroud are neither broken or smeared, meaning the man on the shroud had o have gotten off the shroud in a very unnatural way. Jackson’s cloth collapse theory fits perfectly as an explanation.

    Once you put all the bread crumbs together, it becomes very obvious who the man on the shroud is.

    Ba777 , thanks man for the link to the burial shroud finds. Checking it out now

  62. Wall,

    Stephen Jones has already thoroughly debunked him. Yes there were duplicates of the shroud made in the Middle Ages, but those were clearly paintings and were well known as duplicates, possessing none of the unique characteristics the shroud has.

    Most people are well advised to take a blogger’s “debunking” with a grain of salt. On the other hand, Lombatti is a respected scholar and his most recent paper in the academic journal Studi Medievali states “the shroud was most likely given to French knight Geoffroy de Charny as a memento from a crusade to Smyrna, Turkey, in 1346. The de Charny family are the first recorded owners of the shroud.”

    Now, I am not saying that Lombatti is automatically credible and his arguments iron-clad. Neither am I dismissing Jones and his arguments. Nevertheless, the greater weight goes to Lombatti, at least until Jones or someone else publishes a cogent case showing the flaws in Lombatti’s logic and/or sources of evidence. Also, your statements above still seem to suggest that the scientific dating of the shroud places it post-ancient world. While you have indicated that some dating attempts may have been flawed–even fraudulent–the dating in general seems to be consistent. Like you, I take the scientific dating with some skepticism. But I think the consistency is compelling, and less easily explained away than the three points you make about the weave pattern, the pollen, and the limestone.

    One other question: The Vatican has not come out to state the authenticity of the shroud. Why is this? I don’t take their reticence as a particular sign of anything, but I’m curious.

  63. 65

    @bornagain77:

    JWT, I noticed you stealthly avoided trying to say the Shroud was a fake again, what’s a matter?

    It takes time to parse all the text wallstreet has written… and I have a job.

    don’t you want to back up your dogmatic atheistic compadre LT? Strange company you are keeping LT to defend your supposedly theistic beliefs!

    Watch your tone, kid. I don’t keep company with LT.

    Of note: The Sadducees, who like you did not believe in life after death

    Resurrection is real. Life after death takes place on paradise earth. I’ve already told you so.

  64. JWT, I don’t buy your Jehovah’s Witness metaphysics, period!

  65. 67

    Lars, as I said before, lombatti shows his bias by leaving out the many clues that prove him wrong. The illustration on the Hungarian pray codex is clearly of the shroud of turin, complete with the 4 poker burn holes, but not the burns from the fire that happened to the shroud in the 1500′s. The Hungarian pray codex is dated from 1192. Lombatti also leaves out the perfect fit in blood stains between the sudarium of oveido and the bloodbstains on the head image of the shroud.

    Lombatti clearly leaves all of this out. Could it be because he is an atheist?
    He definitely isn’t a well respected scholar when it comes to shroud history because he has conveniently left out a lot of detail. Ian Wilson on the other hand is a well respected historian when it comes to the shroud and sudarium and luckily enough, he doesn’t leave out these details. Lombatti tries to make us believe that just because there were 40 copies of the shroud floating around that this shroud is also a fake, when I’ve already stated that none of the shroud copies possess any of the unique characteristics that this one has .
    Stephen Jones uses information from true shroud scholars who are respected for their accuracy, unlike lombatti who is clearly dishonest when it comes to the history of the shroud. Forensic science tells us that the shroud and sudarium were both on the same body within very close time intervals, and the sudarium’s history is undisputed going back to the 6th century.

    As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, they take a neutral position publicly because the shroud isn’t needed for our faith , but privately many high up think it is the authentic burial cloth of Christ.

    Why don’t you do a little reading on the seculars that were given control of the c14 dating, and see what the church officials in charge of the shroud were saying about the pressures put on them to take the sturp team out of the c14 dating tests, even though sturp had the most experience with the shroud.

    Lar, if you studied what lombatti wrote, you yourself could easily debunk him from the Hungarian pray codex alone, and this is without the other evidences I have given you.

  66. 68

    JW, I respect your opinion, but to clearly understand what the early Christians believed about Jesus you need to read the early apostolic fathers to understand which interpretation of the bible is the correct one.

    People like ignatius of Antioch and polycarp who studied under the feet of the apostle John, and Clement of Rome who studied under the feet of the apostles Peter and Paul .
    These are the students of the apostles and they were in a much better position to fully understand the teachings of Christ through the apostles then someone 1800 years later.

  67. LarTanner, It seems you have a easy game of it. You basically sit back and take pot shots at whatever evidence is presented to you. It is much like the evidence for Intelligent Design in life. Though the evidence is overwhelming that extremely sophisticated Intelligent Design is present in life, and though you have no evidence whatsoever that such levels unfathomed complexity can arise by natural processes (not even a single protein’s worth of that complexity), you just sit back and arrogantly sniff, ‘I don’t think it is designed!’. Well so what?, Why should we care one iota that you are willingly, even eagerly, obtuse to overwhelming evidence that is so graciously presented to you? Much the same with the Shroud evidence thus far presented to you. You have been in constant retreat from your initial position (of medieval forgery) constantly sniffing all the way back in your retreat, and beneath it all, in your heart of hearts, I am firmly convinced that you have no intention whatsoever, even if driven all the way to the 1st century tomb of Christ itself on Easter morning, that any evidence will ever be good enough for you. Yet, despite the seemingly insane games you like to play with any evidence pointing towards God, the plain fact of the matter is that the Shroud simply refuses to be explained in any conceivable, quote/unquote, ‘naturalistic’ terms, and the evidence is very strong, compellingly so, that something very extraordinary happened in the image formation of the Shroud.,,, Indeed, contrary to your initial claim that a medieval forger is the leading explanation for explaining how the image formed on the Shroud, the truth is that a ‘singularity’ (a ‘true’ event horizon), of which the only other known examples are the Big Bang and Black Holes, is the leading explanation,,,

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
    http://www.academicjournals.or.....onacci.pdf

    THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist
    Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox.
    http://shroud3d.com/findings/i.....-formation

    this ‘leading explanation’ has only gained strength from what you, not so surprisingly, called ‘shoddy’ science:

    Shroud Of Turin Is Authentic, Italian Study Suggests – December 2011
    Excerpt: Last year scientists were able to replicate marks on the cloth using highly advanced ultraviolet techniques that weren’t available 2,000 years ago — nor during the medieval times, for that matter.,,, Since the shroud and “all its facets” still cannot be replicated using today’s top-notch technology, researchers suggest it is impossible that the original image could have been created in either period.
    http://www.thegopnet.com/shrou.....ests-87037

    Moreover, despite your atheistic druthers, there is nothing within reality, or within the human body, that I can find that would place a barrier between this happening. In fact, if one were to be completely honest with the evidence, it seems as if the entire universe, and even the human body itself was ‘set up’, to make such a ‘burst of light’ event possible.

    Of Note:

    How the Power of Intention Alters Matter – Dr. William A. Tiller
    Excerpt: “Most people think that the matter is empty, but for internal self consistency of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, there is required to be the equivalent of 10 to 94 grams of mass energy, each gram being E=MC2 kind of energy. Now, that’s a huge number, but what does it mean practically? Practically, if I can assume that the universe is flat, and more and more astronomical data is showing that it’s pretty darn flat, if I can assume that, then if I take the volume or take the vacuum within a single hydrogen atom, that’s about 10 to the minus 23 cubic centimeters. If I take that amount of vacuum and I take the latent energy in that, there is a trillion times more energy there than in all of the mass of all of the stars and all of the planets out to 20 billion light-years. That’s big, that’s big. And if consciousness allows you to control even a small fraction of that, creating a big bang is no problem.” – Dr. William Tiller – has been a professor at Stanford U. in the Department of materials science & Engineering
    http://www.beyondtheordinary.n.....ller.shtml

    etc.. etc..

  68. Here is a very interesting video interview with Bruno Barberis, director of the International Center of Sindonology in Turin, Italy, who states that the Shroud is the ‘actual burial cloth of Jesus’ (I believe he touches on the reasoning of the Catholic Church’s thinking behind the Shroud);

    Expert: Shroud ‘actual burial cloth of Jesus’ – interview with video
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f.....eId=151025

  69. Wait one minute, wallstreeter! Your latest response says not one word–one word!–about what Lombatti actually says in his paper. You deal with none of his points, none of his evidence.

    Instead, you accuse him of not taking seriously other stuff. Surely, Jones can find an appropriate venue for introducing these other facts that bear directly on Lombatti’s argument. Lombatti has no scholarly obligation to consider every crackpot idea on the internet.

    You say:

    Stephen Jones uses information from true shroud scholars who are respected for their accuracy

    Oh, “true shroud scholars.” I see. I take it that by “their accuracy” you mean “finding that the cloth really covered our lord and savior,” right?

    My favorite:

    As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, they take a neutral position publicly because the shroud isn’t needed for our faith , but privately many high up think it is the authentic burial cloth of Christ.

    Too funny. You’re right, they probably have no interest in doing anything that would confirm the true faith.[/sarcasm] Perhaps they figure also it’s unwise to disrupt the cash cow.

    And this:

    Why don’t you do a little reading on the seculars that were given control of the c14 dating, and see what the church officials in charge of the shroud were saying about the pressures put on them to take the sturp team out of the c14 dating tests, even though sturp had the most experience with the shroud.

    Oh, great. Advise me to investigate a conspiracy theory. That’s relevant.

    Wallstreeter, you talked all tough before about your big bad evidence and expertise. When exactly do you plan on dazzling us all with it? Surely you’re not wasting everyone’s time with bloggers and conspiracies, are you?

    The longer this goes on, the more I see I was right that investing my time into anything about the shroud would be wasted life.

  70. 72

    Kudos BA777 on posting Mark Antonacci’s research paper, this was a milestone for him as I believe this might be his first peer reviewed paper (if my memory isn’t faulty as usual lol).
    It’s ironic that Antonacci was an unbeliever that set out to shut his Christian girlfriend up because she kept preaching Christianity to him. His 20 years of research into the shroud ended up converting him into a Christian because he was honest enough to go where the evidence took him. Now he is a very passionate Christian himself.

    This is why I keep saying that the shroud is very dangerous to Atheists because the more dig into it the more pain it causes to their worldview . Simply put, it’s Kryptonite to them.

    The pieces keep leading them to one person and one event that best describes what took place on that shroud: the resurrection .

  71. BA

    You have been in constant retreat from your initial position (of medieval forgery)

    No, I think that medieval forgery still seems most probable. I’m not in retreat at all. I’m trying to be honest about the level of my awareness of all the relevant facts in the matter. I know a few facts more now than I did last night, but I have been pretty consistent in declaring my ignorance on much about the matter…not that ignorance stops me from developing opinions!

    Wallstreeter’s done a nice job in laying out some of the evidence he finds compelling. Given my ignorance of the circumstances behind the evidence, all I can give are visceral impressions of strength and weakness. Sorry, but by itself a the weave pattern doesn’t sway me much It could, if I knew more, but I have also been honest that the subject matter doesn’t appeal to me so I probably won’t pursue it. If these are pot-shots, then I must be guilty.

    His problem, and yours, is that for all your bravado about “overwhelming evidence” and “pointing to God,” you have very few material facts in your corner. Wallstreeter declared himself an expert on the shroud and called me out in strong terms. But what was so overwhelming about anything he presented? What was so compelling that I should think the cloth might be real after all? The weaving? The pollen? The limestone? Maybe I’m underestimating the significance of these things, and I am not dismissing them, but I’d be more persuaded by a textual tradition that discussed the shroud from its origin to its emergence in the medieval period. Heck, the main-main-main thing is the linen itself, which gets nary a mention.

    And you’re completely wrong if you think I’m all about evolution and science. I’m not, and so I have nothing to say naturalistic processes and random mutations. I’m more of an a-Bible-ist. I’m fairly comfortable saying that the Bible (however conceived) is human invention. Commenter alan at one time wanted to discuss the Book of Daniel. OK. Let’s talk about Daniel. I’ve started a thread over at my blog, and first I am looking at different translations and textual traditions. http://skepticink.com/atheisti.....el-920-27/

  72. 74

    Arghh my length post didn’t go through and I’m not gonna write it again. I explained to you in my posts before Lars about the history of the shroud. Either you haven’t read what I posted or you conveniently skipped it. Is it too much to ask you to go back and do this, if you haven’t done so already ?

    First of all there is a history of it, and I explained how the mandylion and the shroud are one and the same. You seem to have selective understanding. Sorry but I’m gonna have to call you out on it, and since you won’t even look into it (as you stated that this subject doesn’t interest you) it becomes you arguing out of ignorance versus me arguing from history.

    I also explained about why there was scarcely little mention of it for the first 300 years of Christianity, yet you also ignored that as well. To anyone that lived before 1898 (when the first photos were taken of the shroud), nothing about the shroud makes it any different than any other relic. It was only after that event that scientists came flooding into it.

    If you want to discuss it any further you really need to go through the historical and scientific literature, which you aren’t willing to do as you stated before. I also layed out my case as to why the mandylion and shroud are one and the same and the mandylion a history goes back to the 6th century and if u believe the legend of Akbar it goes all the way back to Jesus.

    Your arguing with a toy pistol in you hand with someone that is equipped with the equivalent of a tomahawk missile. How long do you think you can bob and weave and dismiss the evidence simply becaus it goes against your already stated bias?

  73. Yep LT, just keep telling yourself that you are being completely rational in your claim that a photographic negative holographic image was painted on the shroud by a medieval forger centuries before photography, much less 3-D holography, was even known about. Perhaps if you keep repeating the lie the lie will become true at least for you.

  74. What I find interesting, and I could be wrong on this, is that scientists and historians from all over have been studying the shroud for 40 years. They still can’t pronounce what it is despite where the evidence is leading because that would be admitting that the supernatural may exist. They HAVE to find a naturalistic answer or it’s not science. When Darwin first published his book in 1859, it didn’t take long before it was widely accepted. I wonder if the theory of evolution was tested as much as the shroud in the 40 years after the publication before they pronounced it as fact or if they accepted it right away and then tested it?

  75. 77
    Kantian Naturalist

    When Darwin first published his book in 1859, it didn’t take long before it was widely accepted. I wonder if the theory of evolution was tested as much as the shroud in the 40 years after the publication before they pronounced it as fact or if they accepted it right away and then tested it?

    My grasp of the relevant history is admittedly shaky — I’m not an expert on this — but my rough sense is that Darwin’s theory was subjected to intense scrutiny right from the beginning. In particular, it was pointed out that if heritable characteristics “blended”, then any variation would be washed away. There were also objections from physicists who pointed out that the Earth wasn’t old enough for evolution to have taken place.

    The second objection was resolved when radioactivity was discovered, and the first objection wasn’t really solved till Mendel’s theory of genes won wide-spread acceptance and was integrated with the theory of natural selection. That didn’t become settled until the “modern synthesis” of the 1950s.

  76. “my rough sense is that Darwin’s theory was subjected to intense scrutiny right from the beginning.”

    No, it was pointed out as ‘anti-science’ right from the beginning:

    An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation – Cornelius Hunter – December 2012
    Excerpt: Sedgwick began his review by explaining that he had read the younger Darwin’s manuscript “with more pain than pleasure.” For while parts were admirable and other parts humorous, there nonetheless were so many passages that Sedgwick read “with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous.”
    For Darwin, it seemed to Sedgwick, had abandoned the tried and true method of empirically-based scientific induction and substituted for it his own baseless assumptions:
    “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?”
    Neither proved nor disproved? What a prophecy of the evolutionary just-so stories to come.
    And as for Darwin’s grand principle, natural selection, “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts.” Yet Darwin had smuggled in teleological language to avoid the absurdity and make it acceptable. For Darwin had written of natural selection “as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.” Yet again, this criticism is cogent today. Teleological language is rampant in the evolutionary literature.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ed-of.html

    Here is the entire letter in its polite but crushing critique:

    Letter from Adam Sedgewick to Charles Darwin – 1859

    http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548

    Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) – October 2011
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”.
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.,,, Just two weeks before the (re)lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....nce-irony/

    Moreover Mendelian genetics, named after a monk named Gregor Mendel who discovered the laws by which fixed traits are passed on, is very anti-Darwinian in its formulation. It was only the addition of ‘random mutations’ that allowed a very, very, rough fit in the modern synthesis between Mendelian Genetics and Darwinism. The trouble is that Mendelian Genetics remains steadfast to this day (perhaps some refinement with Genetic Entropy is needed), whereas the forced fitted addition of random mutations from Darwinism is what is now known to be wrong.

    Here is a short sweet overview of Mendel’s Accountant and the deep flaws revealed by population genetics with neo-Darwinism:

    God versus Darwin – When macro-evolution takes a final, it gets an “F” -
    Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory (Mendel’s Accountant)
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This (computer) program (Mendel’s Accountant) is a powerful teaching and research tool. It reveals that all of the traditional theoretical problems that have been raised about evolutionary genetic theory are in fact very real and are empirically verifiable in a scientifically rigorous manner. As a consequence, evolutionary genetic theory now has no theoretical support—it is an indefensible scientific model. Rigorous analysis of evolutionary genetic theory consistently indicates that the entire enterprise is actually bankrupt.
    http://radaractive.blogspot.co.....ution.html

    and let’s not forget,

    The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis – January 2012
    Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....03g3t7002/

  77. 79

    Bornagain777, it’s apparentl that instead of verifying what I have claimed LT just wants to flat out deny my posts. Everyone here can see who has done their research and who doesn’t . As far as lombatti he has no credibility as a historian if he won’t even include the Hungarian pray codex in his research. I don’t care if there were 100 shroud duplicates in the 1300′s or not. Ill say this one more time Lars , the Hungarian pray codex debunks him before he even started. He is not a respect shroud scholar, he’s an amateur in this field . Ian wilson wouldn’t be so careless as lombatti to leave the full history of the shroud out of his supposed research papers. As far as the other duplicate shrouds, they were all paintings, with none of them possessing the true characteristics of the shroud.

    You trying to make him into a real shroud scholar won’t mask his very bad shroud research and omissions .

  78. 80
    Kantian Naturalist

    On the claim that Darwin’s work is not “scientific”, the question here is, on what conception of ‘science’?.

    Michael Ghiselin, in his The Triumph of the Darwinian Method, argues that Darwin’s method does not conform to Baconian induction, but that it does conform to what we today call “the hypothetico-deductive model” of scientific explanation.

    One might, I think, notice that Darwin’s work is perfectly good science in Peirce’s sense: (i) abduction (positing some unobservable to explain the observables); (ii) deduction (deducing what would be the case if the posit was real); (iii) induction (forming the relevant empirical generalizations from observations).

    My main criticism of design theory is that, as Kairosfocus has rightly noted, it performs the first step, abduction or inference-to-the-best-explanation — and then it stops there. It does not deduce anything from the posited intelligent designer, nor does it form empirical generalizations based on what it observes. And I believe that design theory cannot deduce anything from the posited designer because the posit is too vaguely specified to yield any deducible consequences. The prohibition on “identifying the designer” means that the designer cannot be specified precisely enough to yield any deducible consequences, or put otherwise, it cannot be tested.

    So Darwin’s work may not count as science by Bacon’s criteria, but it does by Peirce’s, whereas I don’t see how contemporary design theory counts as scientific by either.

    As for whether Darwin’s theory is correct or true, I think that contemporary work on “the extended synthesis” or “evo-devo” shows that Darwinism is basically correct but incomplete as a theory of evolution.

    Worth noting:

    We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

    Too bad for Depew and Weber that no one told them that the contributors to Uncommon Descent had decided that self-organization theory is nonsense.

  79. “LT just wants to flat out deny my posts.”

    Well, it is not really that surprising since he has already admitted he is not a ‘science’ guy but is just more or less interested in trying to cast doubt on the Bible and Christianity by any means he can find. Not exactly a impartial party! :) None-the-less, I’m appreciative of all your work and am now trying to start organizing it,,, By the way, this video is excellent:

    Jesuit Grad Gives Presentation on the Shroud of Turin – Nov 29, 2012 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcKTkjWkqEU

  80. 82

    JLAfan2001, this is correct because a lot of scientists have a natural lean towards methodological naturalism. This is why science as it is perceived by the naturalists today is being hindered, and is limited. Physicist John Jackson’s cloth collapse theory is pretty good at explaining many of the effects of the shroud image, including his prediction of a second, more faint face image on the back side of the shroud, which most likely puts to rest any naturalistic explanation for the shroud image.

    Forget trying to find images that are like the shroud image. Try to even find o
    Any image at all on any burial shroud to begin with. They don’t exist. The atheists are grasping at straws to try anything just to deny the obvious.

    There was a new book written very recently by Thomas Wesselow called the sign where he states that the by the historic evidence alone that the shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus. This has caused considerable embarrassed to the atheist-agnostic community because wessellow is one of their own and believes in the authenticity of the shroud.

    He then gains some brownie points with with his fellow unbelievers by stating that the apostles belief in the resurrection of Christ is not based on them seeingbthebresurrected Christ but because they saw his faint image on the shroud, even though the is no historical evidence for his claims. Do you see how the mind of a hardened skeptic operates ? They will deny common sense and the evidence to be able to stick with their atheistic worldview, just as Lars has been doing, in accepting the the view that the shroud is a middle age forgery, even though all the evidence says otherwise.

    This is why atheism requires much more blind faith thenChristianity as well as emotional denial.

  81. 83

    Thank you very much again bornagain, much appreciated :)
    I have a lot of knowledge on the shroud but because of my OCD , I have a very hard time organizing the information in an efficient way. Thank God your better at it then me.

    I can’t for the life of me understand what Lars has against Christ. As for me, I can’t think of anyone else I would want to spend all of eternity getting to know.
    Thanks again BA
    God bless
    Wall

  82. 84

    Yea BA777, I was also very impressed the doctors presentation in this video.
    I heard that he is also doing free presentations to any church that wants him to present, plus he is in constant contact with the sturp team, so if any new discoveries come out on the shroud, he will be among the first to know.

  83. Okie Dokie KN, why don’t you go ahead and dig through that ‘self organization’ paper that finds the modern synthesis to be woefully inadequate and find all the empirical evidence that they actually have for any naturalistic ‘self-organization’ processes ordering sequences of nucleotides and amino acids into functionally meaningful and novel proteins. Then you may actually have something ‘scientific’ to talk about rather than your usual self deluded 5000 word rambling of naturalistic pipe dreams!

    Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models – Abel; Trevors
    Excerpt: No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....4506000224

    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    Excerpt: Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC).,,, Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,,

    Testable hypotheses about FSC

    What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

    Null hypothesis #1
    Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

    Null hypothesis #2
    Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

    Null hypothesis #3
    Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

    Null hypothesis #4
    Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

    We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

  84. footnotes to the ‘can’t be tested’ remark:

    in contrast to there being no identifiable falsification criteria for neo-Darwinism (at least no identifiable falsification criteria that neo-Darwinists will accept), ID, on the other hand, does provide a fairly rigid framework for falsification:

    Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,
    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.
    How many bits would that be:
    Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits
    Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

    This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
    Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

    Here is a general overview of the predictions for Intelligent Design:

    A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – March 2011 – several examples of cited research
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45311.html

    A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? – March 2010
    Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions:
    (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
    (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
    (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
    (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....rom_a.html

    On the Origin of Protein Folds – Jonathan M. – September 8, 2012
    Excerpt: A common objection to the theory of intelligent design is that it makes no testable predictions, and thus there is no basis for calling it science at all. While recognizing that testability may not be a sufficient or necessary resolution of the “Demarcation Problem,” my article, which I invite you to download, will consider one prediction made by ID and discuss how this prediction has been confirmed.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....64081.html

  85. 87

    Wow BA, now you’ve given me some nice study material.
    I used to be a Theistic evolutionist until Stephen Meyers signature in the cell made rethink everything about it. Took me 5 years before I made the switch to ID. What a journey that was .

  86. wallstreeter43, Good for you!,,, and following the evidence where it leads, not blindly, but carefully following, is what science is suppose to be all about,,,

  87. 89

    Exactly Bornagain, and I was entrenched in evolution since college, so I never had a chance to even look at any other competing theories. When signature in the cell came out I couldn’t believe what I was missing. I owe a lot to Stephen meyer.

  88. Is this an example of a cell’s power plant, specified complexity or what! I found it in my emails today from the Discovery institute, I believe.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

  89. 91

    Lars , speaking about your supposed historian lombatti, lets take a look at his supposed claims in his article about the shroud being one of 40 forgeries made in 1330 shall we, since you brought up lombatti in the first place. I’m going to show you how many lies lombatti wrote and how good his history of the shroud is. When it comes to shroud he isn’t even considered an amateur historian.

    This is from Stephen Jones shroud of turin blog, in which he left no stone unturned.
    I will post this in 3 parts because of the length of the articles.

    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....0.html?m=1

    [Above (click to enlarge): The frontal head and upper body area of a copy of the Turin Shroud discovered in 1999 in a box in the monasterial church of Broumov, Czechia (formerly Czechoslovakia). The linen cloth is 4.71 m x 1.2 m, about the same size as the Shroud. Accompanying it was a letter of authenticity from the then Archbishop of Turin, dated 4 May 1651. Unlike the Shroud original, but like all other copies of the Shroud, it has no photographic negative or three-dimensional properties, and the image shows brush strokes and paint particles. Also note the above Latin inscription "EXTRACTVM AB ORIGINALI" (derived from the original): Dr. Leo Bazant-Hegemark, "Report on the Czechia Shroud Copy," 1999 & "Broumovo vienuolynas," Mytrips.It, 1 September, 2011.]

    that Antonio Lombatti is claiming that the Shroud of Turin was forged about 1330. But then (for starters) Lombatti would have the problem of explaining away the Pray Manuscript, which is securely dated 1192-95 (i.e. about 135 years before Lombatti claims the Shroud was forged), and shares at least 12 unique features with the Shroud (see “My critique of “The Pray Codex,” Wikipedia, 1 May 2011″). These include the following seven main features [my numbering in square brackets]:

    “Perhaps most compelling of all is a drawing on a page of the Hungarian Pray manuscript preserved in the National Szechenyi Library, Budapest … [Berkovits, I., "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," 1969, pl.III] Not only do we yet again see the awkward [1] arm crossing, this time, most unusually, Jesus is represented as [2] totally nude, exactly as on the Shroud. Again exactly as in the case of the Shroud, all four fingers on each of Jesus’s hands can be seen, but [3] no thumbs. Just over Jesus’s right eye there is a [4] single forehead bloodstain. Delineated in red, this is located in exactly the same position as that very distinctive reverse ’3′-shaped stain on Jesus’s forehead on the Shroud that we noted earlier. Exactly as in the case of the Shroud, the cloth in which Jesus is being wrapped is of [5] double body length type, the second half, as known from other versions of the same scene, extending over Joseph of Arimathea’s shoulder. If all this is not enough, the cover of what appears to be the tomb is decorated with a [6] herringbone pattern in which can be seen [7] four holes in an identical arrangement to the so-called ‘poker-holes’ on the Shroud that we have suggested were sustained during Caliph Mu’awiyah’s ‘trial by fire’ experiment back around 680.” (Wilson, I., “The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved,” 2010, pp.183-184).

    So unless Lombatti can provide a plausible, comprehensive and point-by-point, explanation of those unique shared features on the Pray Manuscript and the Shroud (for starters), his theory that the Shroud was forged in Turkey in about 1330 must be rejected as inadequate.

    Not only is the Turin Shroud probably a medieval fake but it is just one of an astonishing 40 so-called burial cloths of Jesus, according to an eminent church historian. Note the qualification “probably.” For the Shroud to be proved to be “a medieval fake” Lombatti (or his ilk) would have to:

    Prove conclusively that it could not have been the burial sheet of Jesus;

    Provide a convincing counter explanation of all the positive evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity (e.g. the fifteen Vignon markings found on the Shroud and on Byzantine icons dating back to the 6th century; the Shroud image’s major characteristics, including its photographic negativity centuries before photography was invented, its three-dimensionality, its extreme superficiality, its non-directionality; its anatomical accuracy centuries before that anatomical knowledge existed; the bloodclots that would have adhered to both the cloth and the body are unbroken; xray images of teeth and finger bones; the perfect fit of bloodstains on the back of the head with those on the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has been held in obscurity within a reliquary chest in Oviedo, Spain since at least 840, etc);

    Identify the forger and explain how he forged the Shroud image; and

    Duplicate the Shroud image on linen, complete with all its major features, using knowledge and technology only available in the 14th century or before.
    And also note Lombatti’s false claim that these forty (plus) copies of the Shroud were “so-called burial cloths of Jesus.” They would only be that if they all were claimed to be the original, but as we shall see below, most (if not all) of them were only claimed to be copies of the original Shroud of Turin (as it was later called).

    So unless Lombatti can provide a plausible, comprehensive and point-by-point, explanation of those unique shared features on the Pray Manuscript and the Shroud (for starters), his theory that the Shroud was forged in Turkey in about 1330 must be rejected as inadequate.

    Not only is the Turin Shroud probably a medieval fake but it is just one of an astonishing 40 so-called burial cloths of Jesus, according to an eminent church historian. Note the qualification “probably.” For the Shroud to be proved to be “a medieval fake” Lombatti (or his ilk) would have to:

    Prove conclusively that it could not have been the burial sheet of Jesus;

    Provide a convincing counter explanation of all the positive evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity (e.g. the fifteen Vignon markings found on the Shroud and on Byzantine icons dating back to the 6th century; the Shroud image’s major characteristics, including its photographic negativity centuries before photography was invented, its three-dimensionality, its extreme superficiality, its non-directionality; its anatomical accuracy centuries before that anatomical knowledge existed; the bloodclots that would have adhered to both the cloth and the body are unbroken; xray images of teeth and finger bones; the perfect fit of bloodstains on the back of the head with those on the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has been held in obscurity within a reliquary chest in Oviedo, Spain since at least 840, etc);

    Identify the forger and explain how he forged the Shroud image; and

    Duplicate the Shroud image on linen, complete with all its major features, using knowledge and technology only available in the 14th century or before.
    And also note Lombatti’s false claim that these forty (plus) copies of the Shroud were “so-called burial cloths of Jesus.” They would only be that if they all were claimed to be the original, but as we shall see below, most (if not all) of them were only claimed to be copies of the original Shroud of Turin (as it was later called).

  90. 92

    Part 2

    Antonio Lombatti said the false shrouds circulated in the Middle Ages, but most of them were later destroyed. First, a copy of something is not necessarily “false.” A copy would only be false if it was claimed to be the original but was not. But again see below that many (if not most) of those so-called “false shrouds” had stated on them that they were “derived from the original” – the Shroud.

    There is nothing new in this claim by Lombatti that there are many copies of the Shroud. In 2004 a paper by a Daniel Duque Torres, who had made a special study of Shroud copies, was published in the British Society of the Turin Shroud Newsletter:

    “There are copies [of the Shroud of Turin] the same size as the original, some very small ones (just 10 cm long), others with the spear and nail wounds in different positions, some with a crown of thorns and others without it, some from the same workshop and others absolutely anonymous. Some have texts written on (in Latin, French, Spanish and Italian) etc, … [in] the eighteenth century … a copy was made without permission of the House of Savoy, painted from another copy that had been given to Charles II, king of Spain. Another copy was made from the second one. The Savoy family encouraged the tradition to such an extent that Princess Francisca Maria Apollonia spent long periods of her leisure time painting copies of the Shroud that were then distributed according to specific requests or simple friendship. … many copies made in the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth were given to the royal family and nobility of Spain … Many of the copies from this time were produced in Chambéry, where the original was kept until 1578. However, in the second half of the seventeenth century and all through the eighteenth, most copies stayed in Italy … copies were made for the other side of the Atlantic (Argentina and Mexico) … There are earlier copies in France, although most probably based on the Besançon shroud. … When we know the date of a copy we can sometimes attribute it to a specific painter or even relate it to another copy which has since been lost. Such is the case of the copy kept in Pamplona, Spain, painted in 1571. This copy was only discovered recently and we can confidently state that it is the “twin” of the copy in Alcoy (Alicante), Spain, also painted in 1571. … A similar relationship can be established for the famous Lierre (Belgium) copy, painted in 1516, once attributed to Durero but more probably the work of Bernard van Orley, and the copy held today by the National Museum of Ancient Art in Xábregas, Lisbon (Portugal), painted in the early sixteenth century. The Emperor Maximilian of Austria had requested both. There are documents which suggest that the Lierre copy was ordered by Margarita of Austria, Duchess of Savoy, when she moved the court from Malinas to Brussels … There are two things that can be seen on Shroud copies – the texts, informing us of where and when it was made or reminding us of what the original is, and the image painted onto the cloth. … There are various ways that this is explained on the copies, either telling people what it is or simply confirming the authenticity of the copy. Sentences such as … the most common “Extractum ex originali”, on numerous copies dating from the 17th century, when more copies were made than in any other century. Most copies were touched to the original, excepting of course those made fraudulently from other copies without the owner’s permission. In this way a secondary relic “ad tactum” was created. This is evident from the cloth of many copies, on which a sentence to the effect of “touched to the original” was written in different languages … If a date is given on the copy, it is usually just the year, although sometimes we can find the day and month, even the date when the copy was touched to the original. … Given that the painters in question tried unsuccessfully to recreate the “impossible” Shroud image as realistically as they could, the result has never really been valued from an artistic point of view … the aim was not so much to paint a beautiful image as to recall the original with pious intentions. One notable exception to this is the copy in the Descalzas Reales (Madrid, Spain, unknown date), painted with clearly artistic intentions. … Fantino, Conti, Bocciardo, Princess Francisca María Apollonia and a priest at the church of Chambéry were all painters who at one time or another decided to copy the object that had caught their attention and yet which turned out to be so difficult to copy exactly … Not taking into account the 19th and 20th centuries, and bearing in mind that there are another 40 copies known to have been made but never found … we can state that 130 copies are known to have been produced. This number will no doubt keep growing as new copies come to light.” (“Shroud Copies,” Daniel Duque Torres, British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 59, June 2004).

    He said the Turin Shroud itself – showing an image of a bearded man and venerated for centuries as Christ’s burial cloth – appears to have originated in Turkey some 1,300 years after the Crucifixion. Note Lombatti’s qualification “appears” in addition to his earlier qualification “probably”! Clearly Lombatti does not know but is just speculating. Otherwise, he needs to state: Who was this early 14th century Turkish artistic genius who created the Shroud? How did he do it? Where are the other examples of his work? Where are the contemporary references to him and his Shroud?

    Lombatti, of the Università Popolare in Parma, Italy, cited work by a 19th century French historian who had studied surviving medieval documents. Is that all? Why doesn’t Lombatti name this “19th century French historian” in this article and these “medieval documents”? Lombatti’s paper is in Italian, but presumably Italian Shroud pro-authenticity theorists will in due course critique it in English.

    From his website Lombatti appears to be a professional skeptic and debunker (an Italian version of Joe Nickell), using Nickell’s favourite “guilt by association” technique, lumping “the ‘Shroud of Turin’” with “The ‘da Vinci Code’” into the same category called by him “fantarchaeology”:

    Pseudoscienze Bibliche e False Reliquie di Antonio Lombatti (Biblical and pseudo False Relics Antonio Lombatti) We’re living in an age of “fantarchaeology”: apocryphal gospels which supposedly conceal the real essence of Christianity; alledged [sic] conspiracies by the Knights Templar; pseudo-historical books that falsify sources and confuse the results of relevant research. Along with these there are botched newfangled translations of ancient texts, unverified rubbish, and meaningless legends which are presented as if they were the only authentic historical interpretation. In short, from the ‘Shroud of Turin’ to The ‘da Vinci Code’, from the ‘Tomb of Jesus’ to ‘Noah’s Ark’, from the ‘Templars’ to the ‘Holy Grail’: you’ll find here reliable facts. Even if they are unpopular.
    But in this Lombatti is being either dishonest or ignorant, comparing the painstaking research of Shroud pro-authenticists like Ian Wilson with the fiction-masquerading-as-fact of Dan Brown.

    `The Turin Shroud is only one of the many burial cloths which were circulating in the Christian world during the Middle Ages. There were at least 40,’ said Lombatti. Again this is a false statement by Lombatti that these were “burial cloths.” They were only copies of one original “burial cloth” – the Shroud of Turin (as it was later called). They self-evidently could not be burial cloths because their images were obviously painted. `Most of them were destroyed during the French Revolution. Some had images, others had blood-like stains, and others were completely white.’ So Lombatti is lumping the Shroud of Turin with its photographic negative, three-dimensional, front and back image of a crucified Jesus, and real blood stains, with cloths that only “Some had images, others had blood-like stains, and others were completely white”!

    And again, as already pointed out, Lombatti misleads his readers by not informing them of the many unique features of the Shroud compared to these “at least 40″ grossly inferior copies of it.

    The Turin Shroud is a linen cloth, about 14ft by 4ft, bearing a front and back view of the image of a bearded, naked man who appears to have been stabbed or tortured. And that’s only for starters! And how many of Lombatti’s “at least 40 … burial cloths” were the full “about 14ft by 4ft, bearing a front and back … image”?

    Ever since the detail on the cloth was revealed by negative photography in the late 19th century it has attracted thousands of pilgrims to the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin. Yes, “negative photography”! How many of Lombatti’s “at least 40 … burial cloths” had a photographic negative image? Only one-the Shroud of Turin!

    In a research paper to be published this month in the scholarly journal Studi Medievali, Lombatti says the shroud was most likely given to French knight Geoffroy de Charny as a memento from a crusade to Smyrna, Turkey, in 1346. Again, note the speculative “most likely” to be added to Lombatti’s previous qualification, “appears” and “probably”! Presumably Lombatti has no hard evidence of his claim otherwise he would have cited it in this article.

    It is well known that Geoffroy de Charny I (c. 1300–1356) was part of a crusade that fought in Smyrna, Turkey, in 1346, but there is no evidence that he acquired the Shroud then:

    “While the fate of Smyrna was still in the balance, a French nobleman, Humbert II, Dauphin of Vienne, announced his wish to go on a crusade. He was a weak though pious man, who succeeded in persuading the pope to give his crusade his blessing. After some indecision on the part of the pope, it was decided to send Humbert and his army to supplement the Christian effort at Smyrna. He set out from Marseilles with a company of knights and priests, which included Geoffrey de Charny the Elder, in May 1345 and reached Smyrna the following year. His army defeated the Turks in a battle outside the walls, but by 1347 the expedition had returned to France. The whole thing had been a singularly pointless exercise, but its importance lies in the theory advanced by some students of the Shroud’s history, that Geoffrey de Charny obtained it in the course of the campaign. It must be said that there is singularly little evidence to support this theory, but as it has been recently repeated in a reputable article on the Shroud, I should mention it.” (Currer-Briggs, N., “The Shroud and the Grail,” 1987, p.48).

  91. 93

    Part 3
    Besides, it is one thing to claim that in 1346 Geoffrey de Charny I obtained the Shroud in Smyrna (even though there is no evidence he did); and quite another to claim that the Shroud “originated in Turkey” about 1,330. The former is not inconsistent with the Vignon markings evidence that the Shroud existed in at least the 6th century, and the Pray Manuscript evidence that the Shroud was in Constantinople before 1192-95, but the latter is.

    The de Charny family are the first recorded owners of the shroud. There is no space to go into it, but it is more likely that Geoffrey de Charny I’s wife Jeanne de Vergy was the actual owner of the Shroud.

    Lombatti found that Geoffroy was unable to join a pilgrimage to Jerusalem after liberating Smyrna, so he was given the shroud as a symbol of his participation in the crusade to Turkey. Why would Geoffrey de Charny I be given the Shroud just because he was unable to join a pilgrimage to Jerusalem? Also, if he was given the Shroud in this legitimate way, why was it such a surprise when he exhibited it in Lirey in c.1355 and why did he and his son Geoffrey II never give a straight answer as how they came to own the Shroud?

    The Catholic Church has never officially commented on the shroud’s authenticity, but has made samples available to scientists for testing. Although the “Catholic Church” has never officially claimed the Shroud to be authentic, most (if not all) Popes since the 14th century seem to have personally regarded it to be. Including the current Pope Benedict Benedict XVI, has made it clear that he regards the Shroud as authentic.

    while two years later Italian government researchers claimed the image of a man had been caused by a supernatural `flash of light’. This was the Italian ENEA report that the Shroud’s image could only be replicated by an excimer ultraviolet laser. See my post “Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ’s authentic burial robe.” While the ENEA scientists did not use the word “supernatural,” that is the only explanation of how a dead body generated the equivalent of “34 thousand billion watts” of light-energy to “reproduce the entire Shroud image”:

    “However, ENEA scientists warn, `it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts)” (Tosatti, M., “The Shroud is Not a Fake,” The Vatican Insider, 12 December 2011).
    But carbon tests carried out in Oxford in 1988 firmly dated the material to 1260-1390. It wasn’t only the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory but also two others at Tucson, Arizona and Zurich, Switzerland. But because of the overwhelming weight of evidence that the Shroud was in existence from at least the 6th century, the 1988 radiocarbon dating of a single, tiny, unrepresentative, sample of the Shroud to “AD 1260-1390″ simply has to be wrong! Indeed the very fact that three major radiocarbon dating laboratories requested that they be allowed to date the Shroud of Turin, and not any other of Lombatti’s “40 so-called burial cloths of Jesus” gives the lie to Lombatti’s claim that the Shroud is just another of the many “false shrouds [which] circulated in the Middle Ages”!

  92. 94

    As we can see Lars, Lombatti is nothing more than a. Pseudo shroud conspiracy theorist , and Stephen Jones easily debunked his false claims about the shroud, and this is what happens when skeptics like you try to debunk the shroud with 5 minutes of google keyword search instead of doing the right thing and looking into the facts and evidences presented by both sides to come to the truth. Truth is not relative man.

  93. Wallstreeter, I am much too busy to play today, but I skimmed your three recent posts. You are not getting the main point. Your Jones is reacting to Lombatti’s top-level claim, but I don’t see a genuine attempt to grapple with the evidence Lombatti marshals in support of the claim. You need to deal with the evidence and the claim, i.e., the argument.

    Until Jones does this, he’s just engaging in crankery.

    And to see Jones fault Lombatti for carefully crafting his argument with words like “probably”–laughable!

    Jones was the guy firing pot-shots one after another, the same thing BA faulted me for.

  94. 96

    Lars, jones dealt with every one of his posts, as I showed in my posts.
    As I said before I myself could debunk lombatti just on the Hungarian pray codex alone.

    Your reacting to the evidences and facts the same way dogmatic atheists have been reacting to the shroud since ray Rogers invalidated the c-14 tests. You, like them and lombatti know that your wrong and u keep saying the same thing over and over, even though you and lombatti have been proven wrong over and over.

    At this point, I am the idiot for responding to your posts which contain no scientific or historical evidence or facts, but something valuable has been accomplished here.

    I’m sure there are some agnostics and fellow Christians here that were on the sideline about the shroud. They have seen my posts and BA’s posts and have seen your non factual posts and they will see who is grounded in reality and who is grounded in ignorance and denial.

    God bless

  95. You cannot “debunk” Lombatti. He is a respected historian who made a historically-based argument in his recent paper. There’s only an argument, a claim about the shroud based on examination of historical source material.

    I understand that you think the Hungarian pray codex is something Lombatti needs to deal with, but neither you nor Jones seem to know whether or not Lombatti actually does or does not mention it in the Studi Medievali article. That’s the only point I am making: you have to deal with the argument Lombatti gives you. Critique that argument. That’s all I’m saying.

    I’ve accepted the facts you have brought in so far. Thanks. They are very interesting. It’s hard for me to comment fairly on them unless I know more about the context of the claims. The weave, the pollen, the limestone: it’s intriguing, but there’s more to the story and I would need to read the scholarly articles myself to feel comfortable discussing the arguments.

    Now, back to Lombatti. He does have some articles in English that make certain cases about the shroud. These are layperson’s articles, so not necessarily going into the kind of historical detail as we’d expect in a paper or monograph. But here are some summary points relating to the arguments he makes (See “Remaking the Shroud” on the website _The Bible and Interpretation_):

    (1) Top-level argument: The shroud contains many inaccuracies and the image is anatomically incorrect.

    (2) Historical points:

    When the relics first appeared in France around 1355, the bishop ordered an inquiry and found out that such burial cloth with a double imprint did not find any confirmation in the Gospels. Moreover, the Pope who had to face the first controversy on the public display of the Shroud wrote in the bull that he be granted permission to show it, but it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation of the burial cloth of Jesus and not the real one. Finally, even the owners – the French family de Charny – when asked for permission to place the relic in their church have always referred to the Shroud as a representation.

    (3) Argument that the image is anatomically incorrect:

    3.1 – The shroud shows “neat artistic rivulets” on the outside of the locks instead of blood matting on the scalp or in the hair, which is what happens in real life.
    3.2 – The hands on the pelvis–with missing thumbs, a convention of medieval art–shows one exit wound, and that wound is in the hand, not the wrist.
    3.3 – The right arm is longer than the left.
    3.4 – The head is too small in proportion to the body image.
    3.5 – The right footprint is anatomically impossible because a flat foot and flat back require the calf to be raised, away from the cloth. Plus, the back image should have been darker and more deformed than the front, because that was where the weight of the body would have been.
    3.6 – The locks of hairs at the sides of the face should be fallen back, assuming the body is lying on the back; but what we see is the hair up front at the sides.
    3.7 – There is a space between the hair and either side of the face.
    3.8 – The front image measures 205 centimeters and the back 198.

    (4) Three university labs performed carbon dating on the shroud and confirmed its medieval origin; so historical and scientific data match.

    (5) The Akeldama shroud fragments–remains of an actual Second Temple burial cloth–were found in Jerusalem in 1999. These–and please pay attention here–

    completely contradict the Shroud as a first century Jewish artifact: fabric, patteakeldama shamirrn, twist of the fibers and a four meter long cloth have nothing to share with the archaeological findings.

    I can go on, but recall that this is Lombatti’s argument, not mine. I simply want to communicate the argument you need to address.

    And remember, the evidence Lombatti presents is your evidence, too. All you need to do is show this historical and scientific evidence points to the authenticity of this particular shroud.

  96. 98

    See Lars this is what happens when your arguing from ignorance. Lombatti leaves out the pray codex because it destroys his argument.

    Ill give you another example of yours and lombatti’s claims. You obviously didn’t look at the link I left to bornagain from Gilbert Lavoie’s research paper. No one said that Jesus was lying on his back when the image was formed. In fact Lavoie’s research shows the exact opposite, that there was no gravity, that the image wasn’t made by cloth to body contact, and that the position of the hair shows that the image was probably formed while the body was floating in between the inner top and inner bottom of the shroud.

    Again please read the research and stop wasting out time. The blood clots were determined to have been made by body to cloth contact .

    Now genius please tell all of us here how the body left that shroud without even causing any microscopic breaks or smears.
    My patience with your ignorance and one sided research is wearing thin.
    This is like a father arguing with his son, telling him that2+2 = 4 and the son still disagreeing that 2 and 2 is 5.

    The shroud isn’t one of the most scientifically studied objects on earth for nothing, and if lombatti’s idiotic research had proven the shroud to be a forgery he would be on the front page of all the world news networks.
    The top forensic experts have determined that both images are anatomically perfect.
    Have you even tried looking at the counter arguments against lombatti.

    Who are u trying to fool? Us or yourself lol

  97. Wallstreeter,

    In fact Lavoie’s research shows the exact opposite, that there was no gravity, that the image wasn’t made by cloth to body contact, and that the position of the hair shows that the image was probably formed while the body was floating in between the inner top and inner bottom of the shroud.

    Well, that sure does explain it.

    I wonder, then, why Jesus didn’t just sear “The Lord was here”–heck, why not in English?–in the corner of the shroud?

    I’m going to leave this conversation now, with sincere and profound thanks.

  98. LT, though there are numerous corrections to be given to your post, but seeing as it is a waste of time with you (as you have already stated that you are not really a ‘science’ guy, who is interested in defending Darwinism but are only interested in bringing doubt to the Bible and Christianity), I will just focus on one main false point that you raised so as to expose you for the shallow fraud that you are who is not really interested in the integrity of his claims:

    (4) Three university labs performed carbon dating on the shroud and confirmed its medieval origin; so historical and scientific data match.

    As was painstakingly shown to you before, but which you conveniently ignored, the Carbon Dating of the three university labs was overturned by peer review:

    This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which completely confirms the Rogers’ paper:

    “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
    Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case……. LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. – Robert Villarreal – Los Alamos National Laboratory
    http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/

    Here the Los Alamos scientist schooled the universities on proper testing:

    Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review – Robert Villarreal – Press Release video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193

    The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating:

    Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers
    per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)
    Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
    http://www.ntskeptics.org/issu.....oudold.htm

    Here is a interview with Raymond Rogers who was lead chemist on STURP:

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 test proves false (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    Here is the entire video:

    Discovery Channel – Unwrapping The Shroud of Turin New Evidence – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyiZtagxX8

  99. LT sneers (his favorite tactic),,,

    I wonder, then, why Jesus didn’t just sear “The Lord was here”–heck, why not in English?–in the corner of the shroud?

    Actually LT, that’s pretty close to what actually happened as has been revealed by recent advances in holography:

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205

    Solid Oval Object Under The Beard
    http://shroud3d.com/findings/s.....-the-beard

  100. 102

    Lars at this point I would have to say that you have completely lost it. You want God to do things the way you want them done. That’s like saying why didn’t God write ” i am here” in the sky with bold letters?

    He wants u to seek him, right now your in denial, and you refuse to look at the evidences given to you. This is what is meant in the bible as a hardened heart. Open your heart and the rest will follow. If you seek God and knock on the door he will answer.

  101. Of note: Here is a nice little short video on the forensic evidence:

    Forensic evidence of the Shroud of Turin – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYG6wETAxjI

  102. 104

    Correct bornagain, the amulet was talked about by Doctor Petrus Soons, and Soons spoke about holographic information being found on the shroud, but they haven’t decoded it yet, and when they fully do decode it, they will be able to produce a full holographic image from even the tiniest parts of the shroud image, and not only that but more information will be unlocked , more then any of us has ever seen before.

    The holographic research is being done in holland and is ongoing. It’s imperative that this is found out quickly because one day that shroud image won’t be with us anymore as it will be soon fade away from the accumulative effects of light that its already been exposed to. This is also why the church won’t be showing the shroud to the public again until 2025.

    The sudarium on the other hand has no image on it and is shown to the public in Spain 3 times a year.

    I also forget to mention the famous vignon markings on the Christ pantocrator, another piece of evidence that lombatti conveniently left out. The Christ pantocrator shows an almost perfect congruence to the shroud of turin which lead many shroud researchers to correctly state that the shroud was the original piece that the artist of the pantocrator painted it from. The pantocrator is dated from 550 ad.

    Lars like I said , an honest atheist, if he dares to delve deeper into the shroud won’t be an atheist for long.

    The question remains, are you ready to seek the truth of Gods existence?
    Or are you comfortable with your fairy tale atheistic world view?
    The balls in your court my friend.
    It’s all about free will choices
    Make your choice carefully
    God bless

  103. Editor’s Note: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final Report in 1981. The following official conclusions are reproduced verbatim from that report:

    No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from
    a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical
    and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

    Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

    We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
    http://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

    In 1978 the S.T.U.R.P. team with over 40 scientists conducted a thorough scientific investigation of the Shroud using the latest equipment. The group determined that the actual image was created by a phenomenon (as yet unknown) or a momentous event that caused a rapid cellulose degradation (aging) of the linen fibers, that is, an accelerated dehydration and oxidation of the very top linen fibrils of the cellulose fibers of the Shroud, thereby creating a sepia or straw -yellow colored image similar to that of a scorch.

  104. Wallstreeter, I e-mailed Dr. Petrus Soons a while back about the validity of Piczek’s theory, which had arisen from her personally sculpturing the image from the Shroud, and this was his response:

    “Regarding Isabel Piczek’s theory:
    You can consider the two conversions of the body that we did as producing two “bas-reliefs” of the front and the back of the body. Now if you put the two together you would expect that you will have the whole body reconstructed. That however is not the case.
    In between the two halves of the front and the back is a missing layer of about 10 cm (4 “) and that basically supports the theory of Isabel.
    She talks about the two event-horizons that formed and then collapsed in the middle of the body. So the image on the Shroud would be made halfway the process, and around the event horizons part of the body had already disappeared. She is the only one that explains this part of the image.

    Lots of greetings,
    Petrus Soons”

  105. BA,

    The carbon dating was not overturned. These shroud sites you keep citing simply are not credible. You know it, I know it. Everyone knows it. This is pure fishing for a way to make deeply-held beliefs seem more sciency and rational.

    Start giving me academic cites. I’m not interested in the pretenders. It’s that simple. If you want to assign me research, then have the decency to link to people who what the heck they’re talking about and are not so enslaved to woo that they start hypothesizing levitating dead-guys as serious explanations.

    Wallstreeter, your arrogance is staggering to ask me to seek gods truth. You owe me an apology.

    One final thing, BA: On that Los Alamos citation, where is the actual paper? You link to a conference site. I see no evidence that the paper is a “Los Alamos National Laboratory report,” as you indicate. Please tell me now whether it’s a Los Alamos researcher who did the work or whether the work was specifically authorized and performed by Los Alamos National Laboratory. You understand what I am saying, and why.

  106. 108

    Lars , if you had bothered to do a simple google search , younwouldbhave found the paper yourself .

    You seem to be proficient at doing this in finding the material to the already debunked lombatti and your man Joe Nickell (who doesn’t possess even an associates degree in any scientific field), but you have become allergic to google search when it comes to real shroud researchers. Is this how an atheist stays an atheist ;)

    Here is the full paper

    http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

  107. 109

    BA777, wow. Nice email response from Soons. Yea the problem is very few people understand the complexity of what pizcek is saying to Truely understand its significance .

    She correctly pointed out there is no forced pressure on the back image of the body that shows the results of it being compressed from laying on stone. In fact it shows the opposite and the hair on the shroud image agrees with her theory of there being no gravity at all. Pizcek is a world renowned artist and is a physicist that specializes in Time.

    Lars I will apologize to you . I am sorry, but I saw no other way to catch your attention to make you realize that you kept on posting the same old tired and debunked arguments about the shroud without even researching your statements.

    Rogers is an agnostic so he followed the evidence, and the evidence not only invalidated the 88 c14 tests but showed that the shroud is much much older than the tests showed.
    It is from a peer reviewed journal of chemistry and it took a pain staking 7 months to get approved. This is science and not the non scientific claims of joe nickell and lombatti.
    Do you see any of their shroud papers in any peer reviewed journals at all?
    Do you see any of Walter Mccrones work in peer reviewed journals at all?

    I will repeat this again Lars, so that remember that is said it at the beginning of our discussion.

    The shroud of turin will force the atheist to deny science, reason and rationale because that is what it will take to deny the evidence of the shroud and who it will lead them to.

    Mark antonacci and August Accetta were both staunch agnostics before their study of the shroud of turin , but they were honest enough to follow the evidence to where it lead them , and it lead them to Christ.

    Lars are you ready to drink from the lake now that you’ve been lead to it?

  108. 110

    Correct Bornagain77, that image is not composed of paint or dyes. In fact it isn’t composed of any added substance at all and if Lars did his sturp homework he would have realized that the image was caused by something that caused a chemical reaction with the shroud linen. Some phenomenon that imprinted an image of a crucified man complete with 3d information encoded into the image. Which professor Jackson said dissipated after 2 inches.

    It also imprinted X-ray information on the shroud. Nothing like this has ever even been close to have been found on this earth .

    Lars, if you go into depth with your research into the shroud you won’t like what you find,
    But it is my full intention to get you to do this. We will make a Christian out of you yet ;)

    There are over 300 peer review papers on the shroud. You can find most of them at shroud.com

    Finally , a second congratulation is in order for Mark Aantonacci on getting his first peer reviewed paper passed on the shroud. From a staunch agnostic 20 years ago who set out to prove his girlfriend wrong on Christianity to a now Christian who is in favor of the shroud’s authenticity.

    Ready to follow him Lars ;)

  109. A shroud has fallen over this thread.

  110. Well LT, I didn’t think you were the science type? Remember, it doesn’t matter to you whether Darwinism is true or not???, but since you all the sudden are concerned about science, here is a index of all the peer reviewed papers on the Shroud if you care to do a little research instead of just sneering in you dogmatic atheistic tone:

    Scientific Papers and Articles on Shroud
    http://www.shroud.com/papers.htm

    as to “Please tell me now whether it’s a Los Alamos researcher who did the work or whether the work was specifically authorized and performed by Los Alamos National Laboratory.”

    Well LT: The work was done at Los Alamos National Laboratory by a fairly senior Chemist at Los Alamos, from what I can tell, whether he had ‘official’ authorization from the boys in the back room I don’t know, you watch the video and see if you can tell:

    Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned – Robert Villarreal – Press Release video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193

  111. LT you make and interesting comment:

    “enslaved to woo that they start hypothesizing levitating dead-guys as serious explanations.”

    Excuse me LT, but they did not come to that conclusion because they are ‘enslaved to woo’, they came to that ‘levitating dead-guy’ conclusion because they were forcefully driven there by the evidence. And I can assure you with 100% certainty, especially from what I’ve seen of you so far, that they are far, far, more careful in their analysis of the Shroud evidence, both for and against, than you, or all of your cited atheistic sites, are!

  112. I know the shroud is fake, because every shroud has a silver lining.

  113. 115

    Right Bornagain, we are talking about former agnostics like Doctor August Accetta. In fact most of the original scientists that studied the shroud were originally skeptical of it.
    Even Stephen Jones was too.

    It took 20 years of shroud research for former agnostic Lawyer Antonacci to change his worldview as he was a very happy agnostic . The one thing all these former skeptics of the shroud had in common was that they couldn’t let go of the shroud once they started studying it. Again , if your an honest atheist and delve deeply into the shroud you will not stay an atheist for long. If your a dogmatic one ala Hitchens, even if God came to u and hit you over the head with a hammer it not change your mind.

    Atheism as I said before then becomes more of an emotional worldview than an intellectual one.

  114. 116

    Right Bornagain, we are talking about former agnostics like Doctor August Accetta. In fact most of the original scientists that studied the shroud were originally skeptical of it.
    Even Stephen Jones was too.

    It took 20 years of shroud research for former agnostic Lawyer Antonacci to change his worldview as he was a very happy agnostic . The one thing all these former skeptics of the shroud had in common was that they couldn’t let go of the shroud once they started studying it. Again , if your an honest atheist and delve deeply into the shroud you will not stay an atheist for long. If your a dogmatic one ala Hitchens, even if God came to u and hit you over the head with a hammer it not change your mind.

    Atheism as I said before then becomes more of an emotional worldview than an intellectual one.

  115. 117

    Right Bornagain, we are talking about former agnostics like Doctor August Accetta. In fact most of the original scientists that studied the shroud were originally skeptical of it.
    Even Stephen Jones was too.

    It took 20 years of shroud research for former agnostic Lawyer Antonacci to change his worldview as he was a very happy agnostic . The one thing all these former skeptics of the shroud had in common was that they couldn’t let go of the shroud once they started studying it. Again , if your an honest atheist and delve deeply into the shroud you will not stay an atheist for long. If your a dogmatic one ala Hitchens, even if God came to u and hit you over the head with a hammer it not change your mind.

    Atheism as I said before then becomes more of an emotional worldview than an intellectual one.

  116. 118

    Right Bornagain, we are talking about former agnostics like Doctor August Accetta. In fact most of the original scientists that studied the shroud were originally skeptical of it.
    Even Stephen Jones was too.

    It took 20 years of shroud research for former agnostic Lawyer Antonacci to change his worldview as he was a very happy agnostic . The one thing all these former skeptics of the shroud had in common was that they couldn’t let go of the shroud once they started studying it. Again , if your an honest atheist and delve deeply into the shroud you will not stay an atheist for long. If your a dogmatic one ala Hitchens, even if God came to u and hit you over the head with a hammer it not change your mind.

    Atheism as I said before then becomes more of an emotional worldview than an intellectual one.

  117. Yes Wallstreeter43,

    it’s funny ,,LT, if he would just be rigorously honest with the evidence, like all these other atheists/agnostics were with the Shroud, and if he resolutely followed the evidence where it led, instead of just blindly clinging to his atheistic/materialistic bias, would become far, far, richer than he could possibly imagine,,, but it seems, at least thus far, that he is determined to choose a measly ‘bowl of porridge’ over his incalculable inheritance that is found in Almighty God through Christ.

  118. There’s not a shroud of evidence for it’s authenticity.

  119. 121

    Amen Bornagain777 :)

  120. 122

    BornAgain777 correct.

    Once you find evidence for theism and against atheism we start to see the foundation of the atheist crumble. My guess is that Lars will ru. Away from the shroud and try to mire himself in a subject where he can more get away with the vagueness that his worldview needs in order for it to survive.

    The shroud is Kryptonite to the atheist because its evidences are much harder to get around. When you argue against peer reviewed science with dogmatic and emotional denial it starts to make an impact deep down in his psychi that he must ignore at all costs.

    But again, and again ill ask this question : why would someone deny the evidence of the shroud means that they are more than just molecules in motion. That there is a being that loves them more then they love themselves?

    Lars says because of his bias he would rather be a deist or co e to the Judaic faith then Christianity. I say, then the why not explore Judaism ? It is a theistic belief.

    Believe it or not there was at least one guy on the sturp team that came back to spirituality and his Jewish faith and that was the lead photographer of the sturp team
    Barry Schwortz.

    The shroud is very powerful because it hits them where it hurts most. They say “give me something that is tangible that I can see or touch”.
    And it does just that.

    It seems to me that Lars stubbornly wants to cling to his atheistic worldview, even if it means throwing g science, reason and logic out the window.

    I warned him that the shroud is a. Rey dangerous relic to the non-open minded, dog attic atheist.

    My guess is that now he understands why ;)
    When he’s ready to be open minded the shroud will be there waiting for him, and I wouldn’t be surprised that it is nagging him , the same way it was nagging mark antonacci when he was waiting in a lunch li e waiting to get his food and he saw a picture of the shroud on the front cover of a magazine. He tried his best to ignore it, but he finally caved in and said Ok ill take a look at the F’in thing.
    He came into Christianity kicking and screaming, it he still came in.

    Everyone who seeks , shall find. Everyone that knocks, the door will be opened for you.

    Lara are you ready to seek and knock ?:)

  121. WallStreeter, you may like this:

    List Of Evidences Of The Turin Shroud – 2010
    http://www.acheiropoietos.info.....istWeb.pdf

  122. 124

    Thanks Bornagain 777, nice article. Fanti I believe was also part of the ENEA team that recently came out with their 5 year study on the shroud in which they duplicated some of the unique characteristics of the shroud with an excimer laser, and said in order to duplicate the full image a laser the size of a 5 story building g would be needed with 33000 billion watts of power.

    Here is another link that debunks many of Lars objections to the shroud such as the frontal image being incompatible with the dorsal image in measurement

    http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p07.pdf

  123. Nice find Wallstreeter

  124. 126

    [email protected]

    Nice article Bornagain777
    Fanti is also part of the ENEA team that just came out with their 5 year study in trying to replicate the shroud image and were successful in replicating some aspects of the unique characteristics of the image , it with an excimer laser , and also concluded that in order to form the whole image they would need a laser the size of a 5 story building with the power load of 33000 billion watts of energy .

    You may also be interested in the shroud of turin thread we have going on the god and science forum here

    http://discussions.godandscien.....#038;t=225

    But I’ve been wanting to point you to a thread started by an engineer named KBCID called the biology of life and 3d spatial positioning. I believe he has submitted this theory to the discovery institute. His stuff is brilliant.

    http://discussions.godandscien.....38;t=37648

  125. 127

    BA777, this is from the Ohio shroud conference link I sent you

    5.7c No smears in the bloodstains
    The bloodstains do not show any smear or crusts breaking (Marinelli, 1996, Stevenson, 1999), as would be expected if the TSM went physically out of the TS enveloping his body.
    The TSM ?went out from the TS? in an inexplicable manner, he ?disappeared?, but not as a living
    man would have done waking up.

    Remember the gospel account of the apostles being in a locked room and Jesus somehow getting into the room despite the doors being locked ?
    This made the hairs on arm stand straight up

Leave a Reply