Holy Shroud Confirmed - Laser Science

[BroilJAB]

www.drdino.com/

[Syd M.]

On Aug 20, 4:33 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> www.drdino.com/

Nope.
'Dr' Dino is a joke.
Just like you.

[Tim]

"BroilJAB" wrote in message
news:92c3a1dd-8d3a-4e86...@n8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

www.drdino.com/

---------------------------

LOL! Those idiots wouldn't know science if it bit them on their dumb asses!

Here's what the idiot says about light"

http://www.creationtoday.org/a-question-of-created-light/

One of the most common objections to the biblical creation position is this:

God said “Let there be light” on Day One, but did not create the sources of
light until Day Four. How can this be? Does this not prove that the days
were not real days?

What Light Actually Is

Behind this question are a number of issues of understanding. Such a
questioner has failed to understand that it is important to take God at His
word. They have also failed to understand the nature of what light actually
is.

Perhaps we need to alter the question slightly, in order to work towards an
answer. Let’s ask this: is it possible for light to exist without a source?
The answer to this question is “yes,” and this can be demonstrated
experimentally today.

Light is a waveform in an electromagnetic field. A wave in a rope is always
a good analogy for how a light wave works. If you stretch out a rope on the
floor, a wave can be “sent along” the rope by one person quickly moving the
end of the rope up and down. This person’s hand has given the rope the
energy required to send the wave down the rope. This person could wave the
rope just once, or keep waving it to send lots of waves.

The operator’s hand is like the light source. If a single wave is made, it
is as if the operator has switched the source on, then switched off again.
Yet, even after his / her hand has come to a stop, the wave continues to
move. The wave no longer has the original source. Of course, it will soon
disappear as the energy dissipates, due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
but it does not dissipate immediately.

Perhaps one can envisage a complex set of levers that could get the wave in
the rope moving, without a hand-waving, but by manipulating several parts of
the rope at once. In this way, the rope-wave could be made without its
“source,” though an energy input would still be required.

Imagine firing a laser beam at the Moon, so that it can reflect off one of
the mirrors left there by the Apollo craft of the late ’60s and early ’70s.
The laser light travels to the Moon, and bounces off the mirror, returning
to Earth, where it can be detected. This process, traveling at the speed of
light, takes about 1.5 seconds. Suppose you switch on the laser, then switch
it off after 0.5 second. You will still detect the traveling light waves 1
second later. The laser beam has traveled without a source, because the
source was switched off.

------------------------

First off, "What light is" has absolutely nothing to do with the author's
fanatical dedication to his imagined sky pixie.

Second off, It is not possible for light to not have a source. Just because
the source is turned off doesn't mean it's not a source. The author is
stupid beyond belief!

Thirdly, the second law of thermodynamics states that it is impossible to
construct a heat engine operating in a cycle that extracts heat from a
reservoir and delivers an equal amount of work. Any sane person will quickly
realize that this has nothing to do with shaking a rope and that the idiot
author failed to identify which Newtonian law describes the ropes coming to
rest.

In conclusion: Theists lacking the ability to understand science attempt to
co-opt it and fall flat on their faces, again, yawn.

[Budikka666]

As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=

Quite clearly, convicted cowardly theists who have FLED serious debate
challenges should *not* be used as sources. Only a completely brain-
dead, cowardly, vacuous scum of a theistic moron would even think of
citing such lowlifes as scientific sources.

Budikka

[Devils Advocaat]

While in prison poor Kent Hovind is a "joke on a dope" :P

[Virgil]

In article
<92c3a1dd-8d3a-4e86...@n8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> www.drdyno.com/



The "Big Tent" Creationist Charter

(established circa 1980)

1. Don't ask, don't tell what happened when (must cover up those
weaknesses and contradictions of those failed YEC and OEC
"theories"!).

2. Bait and switch between proximate and ultimate causes.

3. Promote doubt of evolution, and leave it to the audience to infer
what happened instead, when, and how.

4. Bait and switch between evolution and abiogenesis.

5. Bait and switch between abiogenesis, which had to occur at least
once by definition, and the yet-unknown proximate causes of how it
occurred.

6. Use the word "Darwinism" at every opportunity.

7. Quote mine like thereąs no tomorrow.

8. Play favorites with the evidence, just like YECs and OECs, but
donąt infer anything other than that "Darwinism" is falsified ­ or
unfalsifiable ­ or dead, dying, etc., whatever the audience will buy.

9. If the "activist judges" rule in favor of the "Darwinists" ditch
the "creation" language, and use something like "design" instead.

10. If you need to do #9, claim that your "theory" is not
creationism; critics will take the bait and react with "is too
creationism!" Which lets youŠ

11. Exploit multiple definitions (especially of "theory"), and the
public misconceptions based on them.

12. If all else fails, whine about being "expelled" and play the
Hitler card.
--

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

> As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
> many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
> http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=

The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.

Presented with much vehemence by none other than our
atheist friend, Budikka!

Evidence that the Shroud is the genuine image of a man
scourged and crucified as described in the four Gospels.

The blood stains on the Shroud are genuine; and the image
is not the result of an applied pigment by an artist. This is
all confirmed by evidence supplied by our friend Budikka.

The truth only shines more clearly as the enemies thereof
foolishly battle against it. It remains, as here illustrated by
Budikka.

Thanks Budikka, for bringing to us evidence of the great
sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for us, that
we may share the glories of eternity with Him forever and
ever. Amen, and amen.

From the above cite brought to us by our friend, Budikka:

"The visible image on the Shroud does not appear to be the
work of an artist in an eye/brain/hand coordination sense"
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?id=27642


"it is concluded that the image is the result of some cellulose
oxidation-dehydration reaction rather than an applied pigment.
The application or transfer mechanism of the image onto the
cloth is still not known..Available data from the "blood" areas
are considered and the results show these to be blood stains.''
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003267001852636


"By spectroscopic and chemical tests (conversion of heme to a
porphyrin), we have identified the presence of blood in the alleged
blood areas of the Shroud of Turin."
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-19-16-2742

"The chemistry of the various stains and images on the Shroud
of Turin is presented. The chemical conclusions were drawn
from all the data and observations, both physical and chemical,
collected by direct investigation of the Shroud in 1978. The
conclusions are that the body image is made up of yellowed
surface fibrils of the linen that are at more advanced stages of
degradation than the non-image linen. The chromophore is a
conjugated carbonyl. No evidence was found in the body image
of any added substances that could have contributed to the
yellow color of the fibrils that form the image. The blood
images on the cloth are made of blood. The data, taken together,
do not support the hypothesis that the images on the Shroud
are due to an artist."
http://www.bcin.ca/Interface/openbcin.cgi?submit=submit&Chinkey=77771

> Quite clearly, convicted cowardly theists who have FLED serious debate
> challenges should *not* be used as sources. Only a completely brain-
> dead, cowardly, vacuous scum of a theistic moron would even think of
> citing such lowlifes as scientific sources.

Budikka, your anxieties would melt into peace if you would simply
surrender to His love for you, as evidenced by the evidence that you
have given to all of us here. Peace.

>
> Budikka



Andrew

[Ken]

On Aug 20, 8:39 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
nothing worth reading

[Devils Advocaat]

On Aug 21, 4:39 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

> > As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
> > many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:

> >http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt...

All that is confirmed by these statements is that the blood stains
were made by real blood, nothing more. Your extrapolation that these
words confirm this burial shroud was the shroud of your alleged mangod
doesn't hold water.

[BroilJAB]

Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.

[Jason]

In article
<bcead62d-c521-4eea...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.

Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
worn by Jesus.

They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-21081...@67-150-127-173.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we could prove
you wrong.

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[Christopher A. Lee]

It's just another pig-ignorant, gullible, stupid theist lying about
those less gullible than he is.

In what passes for his "mind", nobody could have honest reasons not to
believe his bullshit so he comes up with all sorts of amateur
psychologised nastiness about them.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd-AC6971...@news.giganews.com...
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>
>> > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
>> > the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>>
>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud
>> was once worn by Jesus.
>>
>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>
> I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we
> could prove you wrong.

Budikka tried that, but instead produced evidence confirming the
authenticity of the Shroud. That it is the genuine image of a man
scourged and crucified exactly as described in the four Gospels.

Budikka supplied evidence that the blood stains on the Shroud
are genuine, and that the image is not the result of the work of
an artist.

Another fact I noted from the same source, is that the image on
the Shroud is the result of an unknown process which caused a
scorching effect on the linen!
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?id=24044

It has been postulated (on another site) that this scorching
occurred on the linen as a result of the resurrection, by the
life giving power of God.

It adds up to my reasoning that this is the best explanation
as to the process which caused the scorched image on the
Shroud.


Andrew



"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which
all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come
forth - those who have done good, to the resurrection
of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection
of condemnation."
~ John 5:28,29 ~








The evidence is in.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Aug 21, 8:48 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article

> <bcead62d-c521-4eea-9e06-12045e337...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

>
> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> > the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> worn by Jesus.
>
> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.

If you examine the quotes offered by Andrew all that is confirmed is
that the "blood stains" were made by actual blood, to presume that
these quotes support the claims that this is the burial shroud of
Jesus is going too far.

[fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk]

On Aug 20, 9:33 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> www.drdino.com/

www.drdino.com, you are joking, aren't you?

[Devils Advocaat]

On Aug 21, 10:43 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd-AC6971...@news.giganews.com...

> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> BroilJAB wrote:
>
> >> > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> >> > the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> >> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud
> >> was once worn by Jesus.
>
> >> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>
> > I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we
> > could prove you wrong.
>
> Budikka tried that, but instead produced evidence confirming the
> authenticity of the Shroud. That it is the genuine image of a man
> scourged and crucified exactly as described in the four Gospels.
>
> Budikka supplied evidence that the blood stains on the Shroud
> are genuine, and that the image is not the result of the work of
> an artist.
>
> Another fact I noted from the same source, is that the image on
> the Shroud is the result of an unknown process which caused a

> scorching effect on the linen!http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?id=24044

>
> It has been postulated (on another site) that this scorching
> occurred on the linen as a result of the resurrection, by the
> life giving power of God.
>
> It adds up to my reasoning that this is the best explanation
> as to the process which caused the scorched image on the
> Shroud.
>
> Andrew
>
> "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which
> all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come
> forth - those who have done good, to the resurrection
> of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection
> of condemnation."
>                                ~ John 5:28,29 ~
>
>                              The evidence is in.

Andrew, the quotes you presented only confirm the blood stains were
made by real blood, nothing in those quotes says it was the blood of
Jesus.

[ed wolf]

Am Montag, 20. August 2012 10:33:26 UTC+2 schrieb BroilJAB:
> www.drdino.com/

did they find the Aramaic laundry markings "J.of N." after all?
IMHO all other evidence points to the bedsheets of Lazarus,
made from one of the Arch`s sails.
ed wolf

"their eyes shine like windows in burning madhouse"
Arno Schmidt

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 04:39:55 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
>
> > many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
>
> > http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=
>
>
>
> The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.
>
>
>
> Presented with much vehemence by none other than our
>
> atheist friend, Budikka!
>
>
>
> Evidence that the Shroud is the genuine image of a man
>
> scourged and crucified as described in the four Gospels.
>

But, you see, if the shroud had somehow been imprinted while wrapped around a body it _wouldn't_ look like that. It would be an "unwrapped" image, which would be almost unrecognisable.

>
>
> The blood stains on the Shroud are genuine; and the image
>

I'm sure they are. The easiest way by far to fake a blood stain is to use real blood. It' probably much too degraded to check if the blood is even human.

> is not the result of an applied pigment by an artist. This is
>

No, it's interesting but the medieval relic industry was pretty ingenious. I'd guess the cloth would be carefully seared with a hot iron or the like to produce the effect. The profits from producing convincing relics at the time would have been huge.

There are enough pieces of the "one true cross" from this period to stock a lumber yard. The Catholic Church described this as the "Miraculous Multiplication".

Certainly the cloth was of a weave unknown in the middle east at the time of Christ.

[linuxgal]

Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> There are enough pieces of the "one true cross" from this period to stock a lumber yard. The Catholic Church described this as the "Miraculous Multiplication".

And curiously enough, that lumber is gopherwood. Enough to build an ark.

--
I suffer from Mallzheimer's disease. I go to the mall and forget where I
parked my car.

[Burkhard]

On Aug 21, 4:39 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

> > As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
> > many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:

> >http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt...

>
> The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.
>
> Presented with much vehemence by none other than our
> atheist friend, Budikka!
>
> Evidence that the Shroud is the genuine image of a man
> scourged and crucified as described in the four Gospels.
>

Not quite as described in the gospels, no? That's after al why Calvin
(in the Treatise of relics) rejected it:

"This (the separate cloth fr the head) is precisely how the
evangelist described
it, saying, that St Peter saw on one side the clothes with which
the body had been wrapped, and on the other the napkin from
about his head. In short, either St John is a liar, or all those who
boast of possessing the holy sudary are convicted of falsehood
and deceit."

He also noted that we should have expected a milch clearer reference
to the shroud in the gospels were it genuine:
"The same observations are applicable to the tale of the sheet in
which the body of our Lord was wrapped. How is it possible that
those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that
took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one
so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining
on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be
recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter,
having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one
side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but
he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our
Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that
he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there
had been any thing of this kind"

[Devils Advocaat]

Now that is interesting.

[eridanus]

It is not the only problem we have with the testimonies about Jesus life and and death. It seems that Paul, what was one of the proto-founder of Christianity among the Greeks, did not know anything about the rich and varied details that are counted on the gospels. He do not mentioned any of the most relevant phrases or miracles of Jesus, other than he resurrected after he died. Then, if Paul did not write any of the miracles of Jesus, or do not mentioned any of their speeches, or fables, it only means that the myth of Jesus was not yet developed when he was writing this epistles. It was later Christians that invented all those stories about Jesus.

Erinadus

[Virgil]

In article
<bcead62d-c521-4eea...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> the authenticity.

If the stains are actualy Jesus' bloodstains, why were they not taken
into heaven as the rest of Jesus body is alleged to have been?
--

[Virgil]

In article <RM2dnUUdqeNOyq7N...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> > I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we
> > could prove you wrong.
>
> Budikka tried that, but instead produced evidence confirming the
> authenticity of the Shroud. That it is the genuine image of a man
> scourged and crucified exactly as described in the four Gospels.

Considering the immense number of criminals scourged and cruxified by
the Romans over several centuries, we would also need to see some
evidence that none of the others left any shrouds.

And if Jesus body really was was wafted into heaven, why did a careless
god leave any of his blood behind?
--

[BroilJAB]

[Steve O]

On 21/08/2012 10:43, Andrew wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd-AC6971...@news.giganews.com...
>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
>>>> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>>>
>>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud
>>> was once worn by Jesus.
>>>
>>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>>
>> I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we
>> could prove you wrong.
>
> Budikka tried that, but instead produced evidence confirming the
> authenticity of the Shroud. That it is the genuine image of a man
> scourged and crucified exactly as described in the four Gospels.

Like they say, there's one born every minute.
...Would you be interested in buying a bridge?

Steve O
>

[Steve O]

For the same reasons His Holy Foreskin was left behind- for people to
worship.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

Steve O

[Jason]

In article <hlwdjsd-AC6971...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

The Holy Shroud IS evidence.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-21081...@67-150-122-229.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <hlwdjsd-AC6971...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> Douglas <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-21081...@67-150-127-173.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <bcead62d-c521-4eea...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> > > > the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
> > >
> > > Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> > > worn by Jesus.
> > >
> > > They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
> >
> > I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we could prove
> > you wrong.
>
> The Holy Shroud IS evidence.

But NOT evidence that Jesus ever existed.

[Caranx latus]

Of what, precisely? There isn't anything about it that points
unambiguously to Jesus.

[Andrew]

"Caranx latus" wrote in message news:G7WYr.3633$gv1....@fed10.iad...
> Jason wrote:
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
>>>>> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>>>>
>>>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the
>>>> Holy Shroud was once worn by Jesus.
>>>>
>>>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with
>>>> their worldview.
>>>
>>> I really wish somebody would actually produce
>>> evidence so we could prove you wrong.

Why not follow the evidence where it leads?

Or do you have an agenda that is afraid of
evidence?

>> The Holy Shroud IS evidence.
>
> Of what, precisely? There isn't
> anything about it that points
> unambiguously to Jesus.

Who do you think it may have been?

Whoever it was, was scourged and
crucified exactly as the scriptures
portray as did happen to the Lord
Jesus.

In not only the four Gospels, but
also the old testament scriptures.

Read the evidence that Budikka
presented. This is solid science.

No one said it was "proof", but
it certainly is positive evidence.



Andrew

[Andrew]

"Caranx latus" wrote in message news:G7WYr.3633$gv1....@fed10.iad...
> Jason wrote:
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
>>>>> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>>>>
>>>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the
>>>> Holy Shroud was once worn by Jesus.
>>>>
>>>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with
>>>> their worldview.
>>>
>>> I really wish somebody would actually produce
>>> evidence so we could prove you wrong.

Why not follow the evidence where it leads?

Or do you have an agenda that is afraid of
evidence?

>> The Holy Shroud IS evidence.
>
> Of what, precisely? There isn't
> anything about it that points
> unambiguously to Jesus.

[Dakota]

And much about the shroud points unambiguously to it having being
created by an artist many centuries after Biblejesus supposedly rose
from the dead.

[Yap]

On Aug 22, 8:21 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <hlwdjsd-AC6971.01130821082...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <Jason-2108120048520...@67-150-127-173.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> >  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article

> > > <bcead62d-c521-4eea-9e06-12045e337...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

> > > BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> > > > the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> > > Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> > > worn by Jesus.
>
> > > They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>
> > I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we could prove
> > you wrong.
>
> The Holy Shroud IS evidence.

So, what is the problem with a cloth worn by an ancient human,
presumably your jesus?
Did the shroud says it was worn by a pixie?

[Yap]

On Aug 22, 5:56 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.

You, being an idiot who lives in the 1st century, now wish to resort
to scientific technology as tool?

Ancient piece of cloth doesn't bring you back your pixie, that you
should be crying.

A shroud does not affect the minds of all the atheists a tiny bit,
let alone in turmoil.

But if you knock your head hard enough against a wall and have gone
cuckoo because of our disbelieve, may be one of our lady atheist here
could feel nano-ly sad.

[Andrew]

"Burkhard" wrote in message news:9b57a7f8-3012-49bd...@t12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 21, 4:39 am, "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> > As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
>> > many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
>> > http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt...
>>
>> The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.
>>
>> Presented with much vehemence by none other than our
>> atheist friend, Budikka!
>>
>> Evidence that the Shroud is the genuine image of a man
>> scourged and crucified as described in the four Gospels.
>>
>
> Not quite as described in the gospels, no?

Scourged and crucified. Yes.

> That's after al why Calvin
> (in the Treatise of relics) rejected it:
>
> "This (the separate cloth fr the head) is precisely how the
> evangelist described
> it, saying, that St Peter saw on one side the clothes with which
> the body had been wrapped, and on the other the napkin from
> about his head. In short, either St John is a liar, or all those who
> boast of possessing the holy sudary are convicted of falsehood
> and deceit."
>
> He also noted that we should have expected a milch clearer reference
> to the shroud in the gospels were it genuine:
> "The same observations are applicable to the tale of the sheet in
> which the body of our Lord was wrapped. How is it possible that
> those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that
> took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one
> so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining
> on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be
> recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter,
> having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one
> side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but
> he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our
> Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that
> he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there
> had been any thing of this kind"

Such was Calvin's understanding. He did not
have access to the science that we now have.

[Caranx latus]

Explain to me what's wrong with the following line of reason.

P1: X has attribute Z.
P2: Y has attribute Z.
C: Therefore, Y is X.

That's the form of the argument that you're accepting.

P1: Jesus is reputed to have been scourged and crucified.
P2: The figure on the shroud appears to have been scourged and crucified.
C: Therefore the figure on the shroud is Jesus.

The only way to turn this into a sound argument is to change the the
first premise to:

P1': Jesus is the only person to have been scourged and crucified.

> In not only the four Gospels, but
> also the old testament scriptures.
>
> Read the evidence that Budikka
> presented. This is solid science.

By 'solid', I presume that you meant 'shaky'.

> No one said it was "proof", but
> it certainly is positive evidence.

It is evidence of something but without connecting it unambiguously to
Jesus, it isn't the sort of proof you want.

[Yap]

On Aug 21, 3:48 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <bcead62d-c521-4eea-9e06-12045e337...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>

> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> > the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> worn by Jesus.

Tell us how a pixie could allowed its blood to stain the useless
cloth?

>
> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.

Our worldview is wide open, not being constricted by ancient
stupidity.

[Andrew]

"Dakota" wrote in message news:k11e7j$bo1$2...@dont-email.me...

> Caranx latus wrote:
>> Jason wrote:
>>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
>>>>>> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>>>>>
>>>>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was
>>>>> once worn by Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>>>>
>>>> I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so
>>>> we could prove you wrong.

Doesn't sound like someone who is searching for truth. :*(

>>> The Holy Shroud IS evidence.
>>
>> Of what, precisely? There isn't anything about it that points
>> unambiguously to Jesus.
>>
> And much about the shroud points unambiguously to it
> having being created by an artist many centuries after
> Biblejesus supposedly rose from the dead.

Now that certainly is ambiguous, and was soundly disproved
by the scientific evidence presented by our friend, Budikka.

"The visible image on the Shroud does not appear to be the
work of an artist in an eye/brain/hand coordination sense"
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?id=27642

[Yap]

On Aug 21, 7:10 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > There are enough pieces of the "one true cross" from this period to stock a lumber yard. The Catholic Church described this as the "Miraculous Multiplication".
>
> And curiously enough, that lumber is gopherwood.  Enough to build an ark.

Oh yes, the stupidity of an ark again..........

[Caranx latus]

What does the omitted remainder of that sentence say, Andrew? Did you
omit it because you didn't understand it or because you *did* understand it?

[Yap]

On Aug 21, 4:13 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <Jason-2108120048520...@67-150-127-173.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>

>  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <bcead62d-c521-4eea-9e06-12045e337...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

> > BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> > > the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> > Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> > worn by Jesus.
>
> > They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>
> I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we could prove
> you wrong.

The cloth has no nano significance to this world, why is there the
need to prove anything?

If you go to South America, people are much more interested in finding
food for their family than wishing to know anything about the stupid
shroud.

[Yap]

On Aug 22, 3:00 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bcead62d-c521-4eea-9e06-12045e337...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>

>  BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> > the authenticity.
>
> If the stains are actualy Jesus' bloodstains, why were they not taken
> into heaven as the rest of Jesus body is alleged to have been?
> --

Good point........
But the loons could counter that the blood being left for memory of
his sacrifice....sure this is in the minds of Liarbag, Andrew and
Jason......

[Andrew]

"Caranx latus" wrote in message news:3jXYr.860$CE5...@fe42.iad...
> Andrew wrote:

Not saying that was the case.

However He was the *only* person to not only have been scourged
and crucified, but resurrected from the dead, which resulted in the
scorched marks on the Shroud, which produced the image that we
are familiar with today. So that we are without excuse. Amen.

>> In not only the four Gospels, but
>> also the old testament scriptures.
>>
>> Read the evidence that Budikka
>> presented. This is solid science.
>
> By 'solid', I presume that you meant 'shaky'.
>
>> No one said it was "proof", but
>> it certainly is positive evidence.
>
> It is evidence of something

Ah, you finally acknowledge.

> but without connecting it unambiguously to Jesus,

But it is evidence that is connected to
Jesus - which we acknowledge, correct?

> it isn't the sort of proof you want.

No one said it was "proof",

........ just positive evidence.

[Andrew]

"Caranx latus" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:uxXYr.3078$Ji3...@fe08.iad...

Go ahead and expound in full detail.

[Dakota]

Jason only posted the link to give himself some credibility. He hoped
nobody would click the link. After all, he never clicks a link we post.

[Burkhard]

On Aug 22, 3:12 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Burkhard" wrote in messagenews:9b57a7f8-3012-49bd...@t12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

True. But he had access to the bible, which for his argument is all
that you need. So you are saying you're willing to go with science
even if it contradicts the bible? Let's mark this down for the
future.

I that specific case though, the only thing science could possibly
tell you is that the fabric of the cloth is from at around the time of
the crucifixion, and that the impression is from a person who was
crucified and whipped. As this was a standard punishment in Rome, I
can't see how science could possibly tell you anything more about that
person.

Unless you think the "preacher" comic novels are a documentary and a
secret society is guarding somewhere the last heir of Christ's
bloodline, in which case you could try a familiar DNA test with that
person and the blood, if it's any.

[Yap]

On Aug 22, 8:58 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 8:21 PM, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <hlwdjsd-AC6971.01130821082...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> In article

> >> <Jason-2108120048520...@67-150-127-173.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> >>   Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >>> In article

> >>> <bcead62d-c521-4eea-9e06-12045e337...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

> >>> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> >>>> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> >>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> >>> worn by Jesus.
>
> >>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>
> >> I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we could prove
> >> you wrong.
>
> > The Holy Shroud IS evidence.
>
> Of what, precisely? There isn't anything about it that points
> unambiguously to Jesus.

Even if it being worn by jesus, so what?
That jesus thing was nothing but an ancient criminal human.

[Caranx latus]

Can you refer me to the Bible verse(s) that indicate that the cloth was
scorched during the Resurrection?

Jesus is supposed to have raised Lazarus from the dead. Were his clothes
scorched?

>>> In not only the four Gospels, but
>>> also the old testament scriptures.
>>>
>>> Read the evidence that Budikka
>>> presented. This is solid science.
>>
>> By 'solid', I presume that you meant 'shaky'.
>>
>>> No one said it was "proof", but
>>> it certainly is positive evidence.
>>
>> It is evidence of something
>
> Ah, you finally acknowledge.
>
>> but without connecting it unambiguously to Jesus,
>
> But it is evidence that is connected to
> Jesus - which we acknowledge, correct?

Of course not.

>> it isn't the sort of proof you want.
>
> No one said it was "proof",
>
> ........ just positive evidence.

It isn't positive evidence at all, Andrew.

[Caranx latus]

I asked you two questions, Andrew. Are you declining to answer either of
them?

[Caranx latus]

What Andrew provided was a mined quote. I usually check what these
jokers have to say because mined quotes seem to be their forte.

It's a certain bet that he hasn't read mor of the paper than the abstract.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Aug 22, 1:21 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <hlwdjsd-AC6971.01130821082...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article

> > <Jason-2108120048520...@67-150-127-173.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> >  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article

> > > <bcead62d-c521-4eea-9e06-12045e337...@z9g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

> > > BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> > > > the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> > > Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> > > worn by Jesus.
>
> > > They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>
> > I really wish somebody would actually produce evidence so we could prove
> > you wrong.
>
> The Holy Shroud IS evidence.

The quotes that Andrew presented confirm only one thing, that the
blood stains were caused by real blood.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Aug 22, 2:53 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Caranx latus" wrote in messagenews:G7WYr.3633$gv1....@fed10.iad...

> >  Jason wrote:
> > Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>>   Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>> BroilJAB wrote:
>
> >>>>> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> >>>>> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> >>>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the
> >>>> Holy Shroud was once worn by Jesus.
>
> >>>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with
> >>>> their worldview.
>
> >>> I really wish somebody would actually produce
> >>> evidence so we could prove you wrong.
>
> Why not follow the evidence where it leads?
>
> Or do you have an agenda that is afraid of
> evidence?

Says the man who rejects any evidence that disagrees with his
perception of the world.

>
> >> The Holy Shroud IS evidence.
>
> > Of what, precisely? There isn't
> > anything about it that points
> > unambiguously to Jesus.
>
> Who do you think it may have been?
>
> Whoever it was, was scourged and
> crucified exactly as the scriptures
> portray as did happen to the Lord
> Jesus.

Hundreds if not thousands of people were executed in this manner by
the Romans.

>
> In not only the four Gospels, but
> also the old testament scriptures.

Care to quote OT verses that describe crucifixion? As I recall the
Greek Septuagint was completed in the 2nd century BC, and the Romans
didn't occupy that part of the world until the 1st century BC

>
> Read the evidence that Budikka
> presented. This is solid science.
>
> No one said it was "proof", but
> it certainly is positive evidence.

Examining the quotes you picked from what Budikka offered the only
positive evidence is that the blood stains were made by real blood.
>
> Andrew

[Andrew]

"Burkhard" wrote in message news:aaa7b623-2c17-49f4...@q20g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Burkhard" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:

>> have access to the science that we now have.

>
> True. But he had access to the bible, which for his argument is all
> that you need.

There may have been religious and political factors of the
time as to why John decided not to mention the image that
was on the linen.

The fact that he did not mention it does not prove it was
not there. And Calvin's position as a reformer would be
to dismiss anything of the nature of a relic.

> So you are saying you're willing to go with science even if
> it contradicts the bible?

I don't see that it does. Is Calvin the final arbiter of Bible truth?
No.

And are you willing to go with the bible, even if it contradicts
science?

> Let's mark this down for the future.

Rather let's be reasonable.

> I that specific case though, the only thing science could possibly
> tell you is that the fabric of the cloth is from at around the time of
> the crucifixion, and that the impression is from a person who was
> crucified and whipped.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for
our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone
astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:5-6

> As this was a standard punishment in Rome, I can't see how
> science could possibly tell you anything more about that person.

Science tells us more about the person, as well as the Shroud itself..

The Shroud of Turin is first century linen manufactured in the ancient
method, not woven in the medieval or modern method.

It bears the image of a man front and back that was scourged. It has about
120 blood stained markings, wounds that are dumbbell shaped which are
consistent with the flagrum of a Roman whip with 3 throngs and dumbbell
shape weights at the end of it.

The individual had been speared in the side. With ultra violet florescent
photography it can be seen that there's a large serum stain surrounding the
blood which is invisible to the naked eye (this can't be faked with medieval
technology).

The man was clearly crucified, the exit wound (from the nail) was at the
palm, and at an angle, which happens to be forensically (as attested by 3
forensics experts, how long have forensics existed?) accurate to that of
a crucified victim.

There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.

The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).

The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).

These things we know because of science.

[Andrew]

"Yap" wrote in message news:25020d04-5c03-44ff...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...

> Caranx latus wrote:
>> Jason wrote:

>> > Jeanne wrote:

>> >> Ja...@nospam.com wrote:
>> >>> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
>> >>>> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>>
>> >>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
>> >>> worn by Jesus.
>>
>> >>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>>
>> >> I really wish somebody would actually produce
>> >> evidence so we could prove you wrong.

Do you want to support truth, or falsehood?

If you desire truth, then you must be willing
to abandon cherished falsehoods, if shown to
be such by the evidence.

>> > The Holy Shroud IS evidence.
>>
>> Of what, precisely? There isn't anything
>> about it that points unambiguously to Jesus.
>
> Even if it being worn by jesus, so what?

Now the atheist here is starting to crack.

He sees the evidence that says the Shroud
is indeed likely the very burial cloth worn
by the Lord Jesus. But he says so what.

[Father Haskell]

On Aug 22, 5:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.

Hindsight. 20 - 20.

> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>
> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).

Dead bum. Bedsheet. Grease stains.

[Caranx latus]

"Just as there were many who were appalled at him�his appearance was so
disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond
human likeness �" -- Isaiah 52:14

"He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and
familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was
despised, and we held him in low esteem." -- Isaiah 53:3

"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his
death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the Lord�s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and
though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his
offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in
his hand." -- Isaiah 53:9-10

Was Jesus horribly disfigured? Was he familiar with pain? Did he leave
offspring? No?

You have been taught that the two verses you quoted prophesy Jesus, but
context makes it very clear that that isn't true. You have been handed
mined quotes from your own holy book, and you've never bothered to read
what surrounds them.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you've never looked. Most Christians
don't actually read their Book for comprehension. Rather, they let the
words pass through them without actually understanding what they're reading.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Aug 22, 10:40 pm, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/2012 5:08 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Burkhard" wrote in messagenews:aaa7b623-2c17-49f4...@q20g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

> "Just as there were many who were appalled at him—his appearance was so

> disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond

> human likeness —" -- Isaiah 52:14

>
> "He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and
> familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was
> despised, and we held him in low esteem." -- Isaiah 53:3
>
> "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his
> death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

> Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and

> though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his
> offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in
> his hand." -- Isaiah 53:9-10
>
> Was Jesus horribly disfigured? Was he familiar with pain? Did he leave
> offspring? No?
>
> You have been taught that the two verses you quoted prophesy Jesus, but
> context makes it very clear that that isn't true. You have been handed
> mined quotes from your own holy book, and you've never bothered to read
> what surrounds them.
>
> Of course, I'm not surprised that you've never looked. Most Christians
> don't actually read their Book for comprehension. Rather, they let the
> words pass through them without actually understanding what they're reading.
>

Could this be why so many carry concealed weapons in church?

[Dakota]

On 8/22/2012 4:18 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
>> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
>> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
>

It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That
doesn't count as 'recorded history'.

>
> Hindsight. 20 - 20.
>
>> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
>> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
>> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>
>> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
>> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>
> Dead bum. Bedsheet. Grease stains.
>

Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan
van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfini_Portrait.jpg

or

http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p

IE and Firefox browsers allow zooming. Check out the mirror in the
image. Or the image in the mirror. Or ...

Either Andrew is as ignorant of medieval art as of most other subjects
or van Eyke used a computer to render the image.

[Syd M.]

On Aug 22, 5:13 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Yap" wrote in messagenews:25020d04-5c03-44ff...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...

> > Caranx latus wrote:
> >> Jason wrote:
> >> > Jeanne wrote:
> >> >> Ja...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> >>> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Now the latest technology absolutely confirms
> >> >>>> the authenticity. Atheists are in a turmoil.
>
> >> >>> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> >> >>> worn by Jesus.
>
> >> >>> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.
>
> >> >> I really wish somebody would actually produce
> >> >> evidence so we could prove you wrong.
>
> Do you want to support truth, or falsehood?
>
>

It is YOU that supports falsehood, Andrew.
You refuse to look at evidence that doesn't say what you want it too.

[Yap]

On Aug 23, 5:13 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Yap" wrote in messagenews:25020d04-5c03-44ff...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...

Crack?

Your lord deserted the Jews long ago while you idiots are embracing
leftover smoke.

Your embrace did not prevent 9/11 from happening, did it?

[Andrew]

"Dakota" wrote in message news:k14puv$go7$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 8/22/2012 4:18 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 5:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
>>> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
>>> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
>>
> It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That doesn't count as 'recorded history'.
>>
>> Hindsight. 20 - 20.
>>
>>> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
>>> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
>>> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>>
>>> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
>>> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>
>> Dead bum. Bedsheet. Grease stains.
>>
> Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfini_Portrait.jpg
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p

This is a *painting*. Budikka provided scientific
evidence that the Shroud was _not_ a *painting*.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 23 Aug, 11:33, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Dakota"  wrote in messagenews:k14puv$go7$1...@dont-email.me...

> > On 8/22/2012 4:18 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
> >> On Aug 22, 5:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >>> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
> >>> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
> >>> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
>
> > It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That doesn't count as 'recorded history'.
>
> >> Hindsight.  20 - 20.
>
> >>> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
> >>> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
> >>> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>
> >>> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
> >>> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>
> >> Dead bum.  Bedsheet.  Grease stains.
>
> > Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.
>

> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfi...

>
> > or
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p
>
> This is a *painting*. Budikka provided scientific
> evidence that the Shroud was _not_ a *painting*.
>

That maybe so, but the fact it may not be a painting doesn't prove the
cloth to be the burial shroud of your mangod.

[Budikka666]

On Aug 20, 10:39 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

> > As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
> > many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
> >http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt...
>
> The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.

Evident that the shroud is a 14th century fraud.

> Presented with much vehemence by none other than our
> atheist friend, Budikka!
>
> Evidence that the Shroud is the genuine image of a man
> scourged and crucified as described in the four Gospels.

LIE.

> The blood stains on the Shroud are genuine; and the image
> is not the result of an applied pigment by an artist. This is
> all confirmed by evidence supplied by our friend Budikka.

LIE. Why are you to big of a lowlife COQWARD to quote the abstrct,
thesit scumboi?
here it is:
"The visible image on the Shroud is probably not the result of a hot
bas-relief impressed into cloth, but such a mechanism seems capable of
accounting for the Shroud image’s distance correlation, resolution,
and similar chemical structure. It does not simultaneously account for
(1) the 3-D image residing on one side of the Shroud, (2) observed
lateral image distortions (consistent with a draping cloth over a body
shape), or (3) expected thermal perturbations associated with
physically thick superimposed blood images."

In short, it's a proven 14th century cloth with an image faked onto
it.

End of story, case closed.

Budikka

[u4z]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> physically thick superimposed blood images."
>
> In short, it's a proven 14th century cloth with an image faked onto
> it.
>
> End of story, case closed.
>
> Budikka

Things that have a complex design, have and intelligent designer?

A non-sequitur (it does not follow). Designs do not require a
monogenetic single designer even for human design. Designs usually come
about from many designers. A Boeing 747, for example, required many
designers. In fact no one single person could have had all the knowledge
required to design its entirety. Even inventions usually thought of as
designed by one person (light bulb by Edison, the telephone by Bell,
etc.) derive from the knowledge accumulated by many persons and many
disciplines. Edison, for example, could not have invented the light bulb
without prior knowledge of electricity brought about by scientists
before him. I defy anyone to give an example of any physical invention
created solely by a single inventor without annexing prior knowledge
from others.

Taking the analogy to its extreme, everything in the universe could have
come from pantheistic designers, trillions of them, where each designer
(god) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only
"knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react). Each
designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have
an entire universe built from many unintelligent gods. This would also
explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.

Complex "designs" can come about without an intelligent designer at all.
Snowflakes, crystals and life-forms for example. Order and complexity
can even come out of disorder; for example, galaxies, star and solar
systems, the Red Spot on Jupiter, hurricanes, etc. These all show order
emerging from disorder.

[Budikka666]

On Aug 23, 5:33 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Dakota"  wrote in messagenews:k14puv$go7$1...@dont-email.me...

> > On 8/22/2012 4:18 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
> >> On Aug 22, 5:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >>> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
> >>> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
> >>> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
>
> > It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That doesn't count as 'recorded history'.
>
> >> Hindsight.  20 - 20.
>
> >>> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
> >>> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
> >>> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>
> >>> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
> >>> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>
> >> Dead bum.  Bedsheet.  Grease stains.
>
> > Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.
>

> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfi...

>
> > or
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p
>
> This is a *painting*. Budikka provided scientific
> evidence that the Shroud was _not_ a *painting*.

No one who knows what they're tlaking about claims it is a painting,
asshole. Joe Nickel has shown how the image was faked:
http://web.utanet.at/mahain/turin_shroud.htm

In order for it to be real, the 14th century date - confirmed as many
times as you [ersonalyl have denied Christ (thrice) would ahve to be
shown to be wrrong and it has not been shown to be wrong - but that's
not all.

In addition to *that*, you would have to demonstrate that there
actually *is* a creator, and that he actually *did* spawn a divine
scape goat who was crucified. Since you have shrunk away like a limp
Peter at the passion *every* *single* *time* you've been asked to
provide supporting ***INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE OR POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE*** (which has been defined and detailed for you repeatedly,
notwithstanding your pathetic juvenile LIES to the contrary you
lowlife scum, you LOSE.

You have nothing but your LIES. LIES are your religion and they are
all you have to your name. Your entire life is a lie. Live with it
moron.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Aug 21, 2:48 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> Due to their mindset--they still won't believe the Holy Shroud was once
> worn by Jesus.
> They discount any evidence that conflicts with their worldview.

So why don't you and I formally debate that "evidence" you claim
exists, and why don't we do it right here in this thread?

Please present your best five examples of evidence for the existence
of a Jesus Christ, miracle working son of a god as depicted in the New
Testament of the Holy Bible.

Your evidence will be, ideally, positive scientific evidence which you
will need to summarize and support with references to the
professionally published peer-reviewed science papers where this
evidence was first made available for scientific discussion.

Failing that, your evidence must be must be stand-alone objective
evidence independent of the Bible.

Failing that, you will have admitted that you have no evidence and
that your claim, above, is nothing but a lie.

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:31756b43-4e02-401f...@z17g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Dakota" wrote:
>> > Father Haskell wrote:

>> >> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >>> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
>> >>> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
>> >>> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
>>
>> > It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That doesn't count as 'recorded history'.
>>
>> >> Hindsight. 20 - 20.
>>
>> >>> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
>> >>> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
>> >>> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>
>> >>> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
>> >>> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>
>> >> Dead bum. Bedsheet. Grease stains.
>>
>> > Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.
>>
>> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfi...
>>
>> > or
>>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p
>>
>> This is a *painting*. Budikka provided scientific
>> evidence that the Shroud was _not_ a *painting*.
>
> No one who knows what they're tlaking about claims it is a painting,

Yes.

> Joe Nickel has shown how the image was faked:
> http://web.utanet.at/mahain/turin_shroud.htm

No.

> In order for it to be real, the 14th century date - confirmed as many
> times as you [ersonalyl have denied Christ (thrice) would ahve to be
> shown to be wrrong and it has not been shown to be wrong - but that's
> not all.

It was shown wrong by the evidence YOU previously posted.

> In addition to *that*, you would have to demonstrate that there
> actually *is* a creator,

Oooooooooh, so THAT'S the REAL issue! Budikka thinks that if
the Shroud is genuine, then somehow this is evidence of a Creator.

Well if you think about it, Budikka is correct about that. Because
if the Shroud is genuine then it shows that Jesus died according to
the Scriptures, and that He was raised from the dead by the power
of God, exactly as He predicted He would be.

> and that he actually *did* spawn a divine scape goat who was crucified.
> Since you have shrunk away like a limp Peter at the passion *every* *single*
> *time* you've been asked to provide supporting ***INDEPENDENT
> OBJECTIVE OR POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE***

But you provided the evidence yourself, for which we are grateful.

> (which has been defined and detailed for you repeatedly,
> notwithstanding your pathetic juvenile LIES to the contrary you
> lowlife scum, you LOSE.
>
> You have nothing but your LIES. LIES are your religion and they are
> all you have to your name. Your entire life is a lie. Live with it moron.

I can feel the love.

> Budikka

God loves you too, Budikka!

He really does.


Andrew

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:31756b43-4e02-401f...@z17g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Dakota" wrote:
>> > Father Haskell wrote:

>> >> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >>> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
>> >>> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
>> >>> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
>>
>> > It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That doesn't count as 'recorded history'.
>>
>> >> Hindsight. 20 - 20.
>>
>> >>> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
>> >>> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
>> >>> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>
>> >>> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
>> >>> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>
>> >> Dead bum. Bedsheet. Grease stains.
>>
>> > Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.
>>
>> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfi...
>>
>> > or
>>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p
>>
>> This is a *painting*. Budikka provided scientific
>> evidence that the Shroud was _not_ a *painting*.
>
> No one who knows what they're tlaking about claims it is a painting,

Yes.

> Joe Nickel has shown how the image was faked:
> http://web.utanet.at/mahain/turin_shroud.htm

No.

> In order for it to be real, the 14th century date - confirmed as many
> times as you [ersonalyl have denied Christ (thrice) would ahve to be
> shown to be wrrong and it has not been shown to be wrong - but that's
> not all.

It was shown wrong by the evidence YOU previously posted.

> In addition to *that*, you would have to demonstrate that there
> actually *is* a creator,

Oooooooooh, so THAT'S the REAL issue! Budikka thinks that if
the Shroud is genuine, then somehow this is evidence of a Creator.

Well if you think about it, Budikka is correct about that. Because
if the Shroud is genuine then it shows that Jesus died according to
the Scriptures, and that He was raised from the dead by the power
of God, exactly as He predicted He would be.

> and that he actually *did* spawn a divine scape goat who was crucified.
> Since you have shrunk away like a limp Peter at the passion *every* *single*
> *time* you've been asked to provide supporting ***INDEPENDENT
> OBJECTIVE OR POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE***

But you provided the evidence yourself, for which we are grateful.

> (which has been defined and detailed for you repeatedly,
> notwithstanding your pathetic juvenile LIES to the contrary you
> lowlife scum, you LOSE.
>
> You have nothing but your LIES. LIES are your religion and they are
> all you have to your name. Your entire life is a lie. Live with it moron.

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:31756b43-4e02-401f...@z17g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Dakota" wrote:
>> > Father Haskell wrote:

>> >> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >>> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
>> >>> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
>> >>> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
>>
>> > It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That doesn't count as 'recorded history'.
>>
>> >> Hindsight. 20 - 20.
>>
>> >>> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
>> >>> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
>> >>> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>
>> >>> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
>> >>> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>>
>> >> Dead bum. Bedsheet. Grease stains.
>>
>> > Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.
>>
>> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfi...
>>
>> > or
>>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p
>>
>> This is a *painting*. Budikka provided scientific
>> evidence that the Shroud was _not_ a *painting*.
>
> No one who knows what they're tlaking about claims it is a painting,

Yes.

> Joe Nickel has shown how the image was faked:
> http://web.utanet.at/mahain/turin_shroud.htm

No.

> In order for it to be real, the 14th century date - confirmed as many
> times as you [ersonalyl have denied Christ (thrice) would ahve to be
> shown to be wrrong and it has not been shown to be wrong - but that's
> not all.

It was shown wrong by the evidence YOU previously posted.

> In addition to *that*, you would have to demonstrate that there
> actually *is* a creator,

Oooooooooh, so THAT'S the REAL issue! Budikka thinks that if
the Shroud is genuine, then somehow this is evidence of a Creator.

Well if you think about it, Budikka is correct about that. Because
if the Shroud is genuine then it shows that Jesus died according to
the Scriptures, and that He was raised from the dead by the power
of God, exactly as He predicted He would be.

> and that he actually *did* spawn a divine scape goat who was crucified.
> Since you have shrunk away like a limp Peter at the passion *every* *single*
> *time* you've been asked to provide supporting ***INDEPENDENT
> OBJECTIVE OR POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE***

But you provided the evidence yourself, for which we are grateful.

> (which has been defined and detailed for you repeatedly,
> notwithstanding your pathetic juvenile LIES to the contrary you
> lowlife scum, you LOSE.
>
> You have nothing but your LIES. LIES are your religion and they are
> all you have to your name. Your entire life is a lie. Live with it moron.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 24 Aug, 10:28, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:31756b43-4e02-401f...@z17g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

Poor Andrew can't see the truth for the stains before his eyes.

[Budikka666]

On Aug 24, 4:28 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > Joe Nickel has shown how the image was faked:
> >http://web.utanet.at/mahain/turin_shroud.htm
>
> No.

You must be getting desperate - posting the exact same message as many
times as you have DENIED CHRIST (that would be thrice). Here they are
documented:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

I know you don't have the first clue what 'documented' means since all
you can do is post shrill LIES that your opponent proved your case, so
let's put YOU ON THE SPOT. Again.

Let's you and me formally debate the scientific evidence right here in
this thread. Post your five best items of *positive* *scientific*
*evidence* supporting your shroud claim with a brief summary for each
explaining intelligibly why it supports your claim and no others, and
I will show you how appallingly wrong, juvenile, ignorant, and
misinformed you are.

'Scientific evidence' means that it's published in a professional,
peer-reviewed, recognized science publication. 'Positive' means that
it directly supports your claim and that *your claim* for it is the
*best* explanation for the evidence. That's what *you* need to
summarize: what the evidence is and *why* your claim is the *best*
explanation for that evidence.

Or you can do what you always do, and show everyone in each of these
three news groups what a wonderfully clean pair of heels you have,
thereby openly admittign to everyone that YOU LIED.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Aug 20, 10:39 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> > As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
> > many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
> >http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt...
>
> The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence so far that the shroud of
Turin, *which* *has* *been* *positively* *dated* *thrice* (the same
number of times Andrew-a-Blank has DENIED CHRIST) to the *14th
century, not the first century* shows that Jesus Christ not only
existed but is also the miracle-working son of a god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating
on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent
tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona,
and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95%
confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD.[5] This
13th to 14th century dating is much too recent for the shroud to have
been associated with Jesus of Nazareth.

> Presented with much vehemence by none other than our
> atheist friend, Budikka!

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
"In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud,
which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it

possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the
miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to
mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord

remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St.
John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth
covering his head. He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or
else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and
deceit""

> Evidence that the Shroud is the genuine image of a man
> scourged and crucified as described in the four Gospels.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Authors Joe Nickell, in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately
state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated
that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that
the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the
posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud
is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths
and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-
representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if
the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.

> The blood stains on the Shroud are genuine; and the image
> is not the result of an applied pigment by an artist. This is
> all confirmed by evidence supplied by our friend Budikka.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
He stated that it is almost certain that the blood spots are blood,
but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or
provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East

> From the above cite brought to us by our friend, Budikka:

> "The visible image on the Shroud does not appear to be the
> work of an artist in an eye/brain/hand coordination sense"http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?id=27642

Since no one who knows what they're talking about claims it is a
painting, this is irrelevant. There are many other ***DEMONSTRATED***
ways that the image was faked.

> "it is concluded that the image is the result of some cellulose
> oxidation-dehydration reaction rather than an applied pigment.
> The application or transfer mechanism of the image onto the
> cloth is still not known..Available data from the "blood" areas
> are considered and the results show these to be blood stains.''http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003267001852636

No evidence whatsoever that the blood is 2,000 years old, or that it
comes from a Jew, or that it comes from a person of Middle Eastern
stock, or even that it's human!

> "By spectroscopic and chemical tests (conversion of heme to a
>  porphyrin), we have identified the presence of blood in the alleged
> blood areas of the Shroud of Turin."http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-19-16-2742

No evidence whatsoever that the blood is 2,000 years old, or that it
comes from a Jew, or that it comes from a person of Middle Eastern
stock, or even that it's human!

> "The chemistry of the various stains and images on the Shroud
> of Turin is presented. The chemical conclusions were drawn
> from all the data and observations, both physical and chemical,
> collected by direct investigation of the Shroud in 1978. The
> conclusions are that the body image is made up of yellowed
> surface fibrils of the linen that are at more advanced stages of
> degradation than the non-image linen. The chromophore is a
> conjugated carbonyl. No evidence was found in the body image
> of any added substances that could have contributed to the
> yellow color of the fibrils that form the image. The blood
> images on the cloth are made of blood. The data, taken together,
> do not support the hypothesis that the images on the Shroud
> are due to an artist."http://www.bcin.ca/Interface/openbcin.cgi?submit=submit&Chinkey=77771

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
"The technique used for producing the image is, according to W.
McCrone, already described in a book about medieval painting published
in 1847 by Charles Lock Eastlake"

Once agian Andrew-a-Blank has drawn a blank and been shown to be a
desperate and lying piece of creationist trash who has countless
indictments for cowardice and just as many indictments for posting
outright lies in his desperation to beg others to join him in his sad
delusion.

Here's his documented record of cowardice and lies.

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in SIX
THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in TEN
THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:

http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en

Now I invite you all to go and watch him RUN from the double challenge
in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:d6834bdd-6e00-467d...@i13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
>> > many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
>> > http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt...
>>
>> The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.
>
> Not a shred of positive scientific evidence so far that the shroud of
> Turin, *which* *has* *been* *positively* *dated* *thrice* (the same
> number of times Andrew-a-Blank has DENIED CHRIST) to the *14th
> century, not the first century* shows that Jesus Christ not only
> existed but is also the miracle-working son of a god.

"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."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603104004745

The C14 date was invalidated since it was proven that the sample
was not part of the original Shroud. You should have known this
because the above reference was from the site that *you* provided,
on the second page.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
> After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating
> on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud.

It is now known that the sample taken was not part of the original
Shroud. (see above)

> tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona,
> and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95%

> confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260-1390 AD.[5] This

[Devils Advocaat]

On 26 Aug, 22:36, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d6834bdd-6e00-467d...@i13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

So how does this prove the shroud was woven in the 1st century AD? It
doesn't.

[Budikka666]

Either formally debate me, or this is the last decent response you
will get from me in this thread because I do not have the time to
waste on endlessly refuting your stupid, childish, ignorant,
transparent LIES.

Got that?

Now are you going to formally debate me on the science of the shroud's
authenticity with *properly referenced* and summarised scientific
evidence as I challenged you or are you going to run?

The answer is either YES, you will formally debate me as I've
challenged you or NO, you will run like diarrhea.

That should be simple enough even for you to grasp. So which is it?
Yes or no?

Any answer other than a simple yes or no will be your open, free, and
unconditional admission that you're a LYING coward.

Just a YES or a NO. That's all you have to answer. That should be
quite easy enough to understand even for someone of your appalling;y
low level of intelligence. YES or NO? That's all you have to
answer. Anything less or more and you're a lying coward. It's that
simple.

Got that?

If your answer is yes, then post your five best scientific evidences
for the shroud's authenticity with the URL to the primary science
paper supporting your claim.

Got that?

Here's the refutation of your latest LIE abotu C14 dating of the
shroud:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v337/n6208/pdf/337611a0.pdf
"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by
accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and
Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined
independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence
that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval."

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. Got that? Can you point to a peer reviewed
paper which scientifically refutes this and supports your LIE? No you
cannot, precisely because you *are* LYING.

Three independent labs dated it to within 100 years and the date was
mediaeval, not 30AD, not even close, not by a *mile*. If there had
been any contamination this close dating could not have been achieved.

But the single greatest refutation of the shroud's authenticity is
your own Bible: the shroud flatly does not match the burial cloth
described in the NT, and the image on it does not match the appearance
of Jews from that time period.

So based solely on that alone, either the shroud is a fake or the NT
is a fake (or both! lol!). Which is it?

Now I am done with this pointless back and forth. If you want to take
me on, then formally debate me, or keep running like the pathetic
coward for Christ that oyu are. I will not continue wasting my time
on refuting one of your lies after another.

You wanty to take me on, then you will meet my terms or you will
continue to RUN like the creationist diarrhera you are.

Got that?

Now will you formally debate me on the shroud as I have requested, YES
or NO?

Budikka

[WangoTango]

In article <mMWdnVMdVcgVm6vN...@earthlink.com>,
andrew....@usa.net says...

> "Dakota" wrote in message news:k14puv$go7$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 8/22/2012 4:18 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
> >> On Aug 22, 5:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
> >>> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
> >>> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
> >>
> > It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That doesn't count as 'recorded history'.
> >>
> >> Hindsight. 20 - 20.
> >>
> >>> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
> >>> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
> >>> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
> >>>
> >>> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
> >>> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
> >>
> >> Dead bum. Bedsheet. Grease stains.
> >>
> > Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.
> >
> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfini_Portrait.jpg
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p
>
> This is a *painting*. Budikka provided scientific
> evidence that the Shroud was _not_ a *painting*.

We went down this (dead end) road a couple/few years ago. Sorry,
nothing about the "Shroud" confirms any of your religious delusions, nor
does it excuse you for running away from threads that box you in.

[Budikka666]

Andrew-a-Blank continues to run from the shroud debate - day four. No
suprrises there.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

When Put on the Spot, Andrew-a-Blank dumps his Fake God and RUNS. No
suprrises there.

Budikka

[Father Haskell]

On Aug 23, 4:34 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/2012 4:18 PM, Father Haskell wrote:> On Aug 22, 5:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown
> >> of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed
> >> a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.
>
> It's in a storybook written long after the events it contains. That
> doesn't count as 'recorded history'.
>
> > Hindsight.  20 - 20.
>
> >> The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information,
> >> in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can
> >> render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>
> >> The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a
> >> photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology).
>
> > Dead bum.  Bedsheet.  Grease stains.
>
> Here's a painting from 1434 that clearly demonstrates the artist, Jan
> van Eyke, had a very good idea of depth.
>

> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfi...

>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4trws3p
>
> IE and Firefox browsers allow zooming. Check out the mirror in the
> image. Or the image in the mirror. Or ...
>
> Either Andrew is as ignorant of medieval art as of most other subjects
> or van Eyke used a computer to render the image.

Van Eyck might have used a camera obscura, if the Sci Am
article I read was right. Apparently, the perspective is TOO
perfect. Hard to paint the chandelier in point perspective,
since it has no receding lines, yet every detail is located
exactly where it should be. I wouldn't put a souvenir shroud or
two past a skilled medieval forger.

[Father Haskell]

Herring bone weave? It's a piece of sofa upholstry.

[Dakota]

Good points. It seems that the artist's actual method is unknown. I
took some rudimentary art classes as a child. The use of imaginary
lines to aid in depicting objects in proper perspective was a
technique drummed into the students. Having those lines pass through a
curved surface was never mentioned and I never considered it until
reading your post. Working with the angles of incidence and reflection
at many points on the curved surface of the mirror would have been
quite a chore but not necessarily beyond the capability of the artist.

The shroud forgery does not demonstrate anything approaching the
accuracy of the van Eyck painting so his method is irrelevant. As you
noted, a skilled forger could have easily produced the painted rag.

[Father Haskell]

The Van Eyck is absolute eye candy. The shroud is
amateur mediocrity.

[Budikka666]

When Put on the Spot, Andrew-a-Blank dumps his Fake God and RUNS.

Nothing new here!

Budikka

[Budikka666]

[Budikka666]

[Budikka666]

When Put on the Spot, Andrew-a-Blank leaves his Fake God in the dust
where it belongs and RUNS.

Nothing new here!

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:acfc733b-ba25-49ef...@k17g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

> Here's the refutation of your latest LIE abotu C14 dating of the shroud:
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v337/n6208/pdf/337611a0.pdf
> "Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by
> accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and
> Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined
> independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence
> that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval."
>
> CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. Got that?

We have evidence that the samples that were tested are medieval, but not
that the Shroud itself is medieval.

> Can you point to a peer reviewed paper which scientifically refutes this..?

Right here..

"It appears that little attention was given to selecting suitable samples
of the Shroud for radiocarbon dating. Thus, a sample was selected
which is not representative of the whole cloth. How this happened and
evidence for it are explained."
http://ir-lib.wilmina.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10775/76
http://www.wilmina.ac.jp/ojc/edu/kiyo_2008/kiyo_38_PDF/04.pdf

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."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603104004745

The C14 date was invalidated since it was proven that the samples were

not part of the original Shroud. You should have known this because the

above reference was from the main site that ~you~ had previously posted.


Andrew

[Budikka666]

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your fake
omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you are a
vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based in
science. Thanks for your free and unconditional admission. Your
credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot to death.

Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k1vj8c$p7v$1...@dont-email.me...

> You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
> debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your fake
> omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you are a
> vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based in
> science.

If you simply ignore the peer reviewed papers that were just presented
(at your request) which scientifically refute your C14 conclusion error,
then it is obvious that you would do so also in any formal debate.... if
they showed that your position was in error, which it is.

> Thanks for your free and unconditional admission.

You're welcome.

> Your credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot
> to death.

Rather credibility is "shot to death" from one who ignores evidence
that refutes their position, which you have just done.

> Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Seems that you are the one "running" by ignoring evidence that exposes
your false position.

> Budikka

Since you cannot fight against the truth and prevail,
why not cease your rebellion and accept the truth?


Andrew

[Budikka666]

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your
fake
omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you are a
vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based in

science. Thanks for your free and unconditional admission. Your

credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot to
death.

Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your
fake omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you
are a vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based

in science. Thanks for your free and unconditional admission. Your

credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot to
death.

Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

[Budikka666]

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your
fake omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you
are a vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based

in science. Thanks for your free and unconditional admission. Your

credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot to
death.

Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:c8f88a1c-903c-4300...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
> debate me or not, answer yes or no,

Why? If you refuse to acknowledge peer-reviewed published papers
that expose your false position, as you have done, then it is obvious
that you have no interest in the truth.


Andrew

[Devils Advocaat]

On 6 Sep, 08:13, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:c8f88a1c-903c-4300...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Actually Andrew, you're the one who refuses to acknowledge those peer
reviewed papers that expose your false position, and now you add to
your repertoire the ability to misinterpret such papers so you can
pretend they support your ever weakening faith.

[Budikka666]

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you

[Budikka666]

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you