Creation in 6 days or Evolution over billions of years - Page 29 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14803267
Besoeker wrote:You stated " the scientific proof of the Shroud of Turin"
And now you are citing an article with a possible margin of 250 years???
Actually, it's ± 250 years.
The mean of which would put it at 30BC. If relevant.
So, not only does that not pinpoint it to the suggested date of the crusifixion, it gives not the slightest clue as to who the victim was.
To quote Ricky Gervais.......

the scientists have not perfected these dating methods, so they always state it within some margin of error. But the shroud should be dated before the date of the crucifixion, because it is not reasonable to think it was made on the day of the crucifixion. You don't believe in any of this anyway, so why do you keep asking questions?
ingliz wrote:In non pathological H. sapiens the EQ (Encephalization Quotient) is in the area of 4.5 to 5.0. Using the method for calculating EQ in Ruff, E. et al. (Nature 387: 173-176) the EQ for the shroud figure is 2.6. Achieving a value anywhere close to that of modern man is not possible given the dimensions of the figure on the cloth.
:)

The scientists that studied the Shroud say the man was about 5 feet 11 inches tall. I am not sure what you are talking about. The Shroud itself was 14 feet long that the man was placed on and then covered so there is an image of the front and back of the man on the linen burial shroud.

The Shroud of Turin is a 4.4 X 1.1 m linen cloth bearing the front and back body
images, accompanied by blood images, of what appears to be a crucified man. As it is alleged
to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus, it is a most controversial object. Many of those not
accepting this claim have asserted that it is just a painting, although it is now clear that the
blood images are due to the cloth having been in contact with a wounded human body. A large
body of scientific evidence has now been accumulated on this object and will be reviewed in
some detail, including the question of authenticity. It will be clear that it is not a painting, nor
any of several other recently suggested explanations such as a photograph, although the
mechanism of the formation of the body images remains a mystery. Matters concerning its
conservation will also be briefly touched upon.


https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
#14803273
I am not sure what you are talking about

The size of the head in the image.

The size of the face measured from eyebrow to chin in the shroud figure is normal. The shortness of the head is due to an abnormally low forehead. In normal humans the head from the top to the eyebrows is over a third of total head height, or 80 to 100 mm (3 to 4 in). In the shroud figure the top of the cranium is about one forth overall head height, around 60 mm (2.5 in).

In modern adult male humans the volume of the brain averages 1250 cc with a minimum of 1050 cc (Allen J et al., 2002 Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol 118:341-358). The volume of the shroud head's brain is approx. 800 cc.

the man was about 5 feet 11 inches tall.

The rear view shows both the top of the head and the heels, and provides a height a little over 1860 mm (6 ft 1 in).

the blood images are due to the cloth having been in contact with a wounded human body.

The 'blood' is paint made from red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium (McCrone, Acc. Chem. Res., Vol. 23, 1990).

arms too long

A subtle yet serious defect.

In the front image the hands are used to prudishly cover the genitalia, with the elbows bowed significantly out to the side, and the shoulders spread out to the side in a normal manner. Judging from the rear image the elbows were not in contact with the surface that the alleged corpse was resting on. This arrangement may look natural, but it is not and is an artistic illusion. In order for a person to cover their genitalia in the manner of the shroud figure, the shoulders need to be hunched forward a little, and the arms strongly extended towards the crotch, with the elbows tucked in. This does not match the non hunched shoulders, and is not possible for a corpse.

Get down on the floor and try to match the pose of the image. If you try, it is impossible; your elbows will drop to the floor and your hands cannot then reach the groin.

:)
Last edited by ingliz on 08 May 2017 11:24, edited 1 time in total.
#14803280
Hindsite wrote:the scientists have not perfected these dating methods, so they always state it within some margin of error.
You only agree with science when it agrees with your beliefs, otherwise you demonize it. You're laughable.

Can you say, "Confirmation Bias"?


I knew you could.
#14803419
ingliz wrote:The size of the head in the image.

The size of the face measured from eyebrow to chin in the shroud figure is normal. The shortness of the head is due to an abnormally low forehead. In normal humans the head from the top to the eyebrows is over a third of total head height, or 80 to 100 mm (3 to 4 in). In the shroud figure the top of the cranium is about one forth overall head height, around 60 mm (2.5 in).

In modern adult male humans the volume of the brain averages 1250 cc with a minimum of 1050 cc (Allen J et al., 2002 Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol 118:341-358). The volume of the shroud head's brain is approx. 800 cc.

The rear view shows both the top of the head and the heels, and provides a height a little over 1860 mm (6 ft 1 in).

The 'blood' is paint made from red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium (McCrone, Acc. Chem. Res., Vol. 23, 1990).
A subtle yet serious defect.

Get down on the floor and try to match the pose of the image. If you try, it is impossible; your elbows will drop to the floor and your hands cannot then reach the groin.
:)

I believe you must have some wrong information on the head. The scientists that actually examined the Shroud would have mentioned an abnormal head height if that was truly the case. His bones were all pulled out of joint as in the prophecy of the Psalm, so that is why he looks taller on the shroud. That would also account for the longer arms. Considering that, I don't see that the image is different from any normal man except for the way he died and apparently neither did any of the scientists.
Godstud wrote:You only agree with science when it agrees with your beliefs, otherwise you demonize it. You're laughable.
Can you say, "Confirmation Bias"?

You just described yourself. You only agree with the science that agrees with your political views.
Besoeker wrote:So why do you offer it as evidence that it was from Christ when the science you quote does not?

I present this dating information because others have produced contaminated carbon dating information that I already explained. Some people believe in these dating methods because it involves some theoretical science. But as I pointed out, there are various reasons why they are not a reliable way to accurately date anything in the past.
#14803433
Besoeker wrote:So why present it as evidence that it was the shroud of jesus?

I just told you that I was not presenting it as evidence that it was the shroud of Jesus, but that it contradicted the contaminated carbon dating that some believed proved that it could not be the Shroud of Jesus. These new scientific dating results indicates that it could be the Shroud of Jesus. That's all.
#14803469
I believe you must have some wrong information on the head.

The 'Gothic argument' is Schafersman's. An argument supposedly refuted by Zugibe, but, when detailed measurements of the head were made from full size photographs by Paul, Schafersman was proved right. The head was too short, the 'Gothic argument' being tosh, notwithstanding.

An overview of what is anatomically normal and abnormal with the image (but not the head) is found in an article from Ercoline et al, 1982. They asked 98 men, who were of the same height as the man on the Shroud, to lie down on a grid in the same position as the man. After that they measured all sorts of distances and compared them with the man on the Shroud. Ercoline et al. found that most of the features matched, but there were deviations. They believed that these could not be due to normal anatomical variation
#14803515
ingliz wrote:The 'Gothic argument' is Schafersman's. An argument supposedly refuted by Zugibe, but, when detailed measurements of the head were made from full size photographs by Paul, Schafersman was proved right. The head was too short, the 'Gothic argument' being tosh, notwithstanding.

An overview of what is anatomically normal and abnormal with the image (but not the head) is found in an article from Ercoline et al, 1982. They asked 98 men, who were of the same height as the man on the Shroud, to lie down on a grid in the same position as the man. After that they measured all sorts of distances and compared them with the man on the Shroud. Ercoline et al. found that most of the features matched, but there were deviations. They believed that these could not be due to normal anatomical variation

Those men were not crucified or hung from a cross for hours in the hot sunlight, so it is like comparing apples to oranges, as the saying goes.
#14803524
Hindsite wrote:You only agree with the science that agrees with your political views.
False, and you know that. You present videos with people who are not even scientists, to support your views. I present real scientists with PhDs in the field, and not PhDs in psychology.
#14803527
Ok, lets assume for a moment that Jeebus actually existed. In that case, how do we know that he wasn't lying to get attention (Saying that you are the son of god certainly attracts a lot of positive attention). The chances that it was all just a big lie are far greater (as in infinitely greater) than the chances a higher being created the big bang. Which is far greater than the chances that she would be able to interfere in the universe after it was created.

Basically the odds are 1:.001:0
#14803540
MememyselfandIJK wrote:Ok, lets assume for a moment that Jeebus actually existed. In that case, how do we know that he wasn't lying to get attention (Saying that you are the son of god certainly attracts a lot of positive attention). The chances that it was all just a big lie are far greater (as in infinitely greater) than the chances a higher being created the big bang. Which is far greater than the chances that she would be able to interfere in the universe after it was created.

Basically the odds are 1:.001:0

We know because he rose from the dead exactly as he said He would.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah
#14803739
Hindsite wrote:It is no threat. It is the second death and a promise by the Lord Jesus.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

Well then since hell doesn't exist, I guess I'll just move on.

Even if it did, there would be so many smart people there (Einstein, Ramanujan) that's it's probably air-conditioned. (Besides didn't the pope say that atheists could get into heaven anyways or something like that? :lol: )
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]