Shroud of Turin - New Findings!!!!!

[mommymilkies]

I watched something once, I think on Nat Geo but maybe not, about how it could happen. It would take a combination of parthogenesis (basically Marry making a clone of herself) and her having a Y chromosome, which does happen sometimes to people that are by all accounts female.

 

That's very confusing. So Mary was a Hermaphrodite? That definitely puts a...strange twist on things.

[Teachin'Mine]

I'm over here with Beth. Ducking the tomatoes. :D

 

You're even ducking in your avatar!!! :lol:

 

No need - no tomatoes are airborne. :001_smile:

[Teachin'Mine]

That's very confusing.

 

 

That would be incredibly sad if that's what you come away from this thread with. :confused:

 

Mary was conceived without sin. She conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit and remained a virgin her whole life. She was assumed into heaven - body and soul. She is the Queen of the Universe. She loves each of us beyond what we can fathom and wants to lead all of us to her Son. All generations shall call her Blessed.

[Teachin'Mine]

Now THERE"S an interesting thought...

 

It is. Some info earlier on in the thread. :)

[Teachin'Mine]

I think this is what we watched.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Shroud-Turin-Artist-Provided/dp/B0000CBXYP/ref=sr_1_4?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1324655756&sr=1-4

[TXBeth]

That would be incredibly sad if that's what you come away from this thread with. :confused:

 

Mary was conceived without sin. She conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit and remained a virgin her whole life. She was assumed into heaven - body and soul. She is the Queen of the Universe. She loves each of us beyond what we can fathom and wants to lead all of us to her Son. All generations shall call her Blessed.

 

Bolder is Biblical. The rest is conjecture. First sentence is decidedly UNBiblical as only Jesus was sinless. I have no idea where "queen of the universe" came from and it makes me wonder if you are just joking with all this...

[Onceuponatime]

Bolder is Biblical. The rest is conjecture. First sentence is decidedly UNBiblical as only Jesus was sinless. I have no idea where "queen of the universe" came from and it makes me wonder if you are just joking with all this...

 

I'm sure she is not joking. This is considered Holy Tradition by some. You probably don't have experience with this kind of teaching. I would have said something similar a few years ago.

[Iucounu]

At the end of this clip' date=' they give the information that the researchers said that[b'] as of today[/b], we don't have the ability to create a source of UV light strong enough to produce this image. :D

That's incorrect. What the video actually quotes is, "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date."

 

"normal" = non-laser

 

This is a good example of how taking quotes out of context can result in propagation of misinformation throughout the blogosphere. More info on how the re-reporting of initially misquoted information has actually resulted in widespread misinformation on this particular news story:

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/

"Note: originally I quoted (ENEA) as saying (the Shroud) could 'only' have been made by UV. Dr Paolo Di Lazzaro of ENEA has emailed to say that's not the case, so I've updated it."

 

That incidentally is an interesting piece, which points out that the thrust of the ENEA experiment was simply to respond to the STURP criticism based on lack of penetration of color into the Shroud's fibers. It doesn't prove that a burst of light created the Shroud; in fact in my opinion, without benefit of reading the study yet, it would tend to disprove it. As noted, no known non-laser source of UV light could produce something even close to the effect of the Shroud-- and even with lasers, ENEA didn't manage to replicate it either, just to come somewhat close. Laser light is highly directional (look up the term "coherence" for more on this), and it would be grasping at straws to suggest without basis that light emitted during the Resurrection must have been coherent, since ENEA and the cloth itself "prove" it so. :) (Coherent light doesn't emit from a light source in all directions-- and stating we can't come close to reproducing the Shroud without coherent light doesn't mean that more powerful non-coherent light was used.)

 

Any reports that actual working scientists have imputed anything to supernatural origins shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole (this includes any reports of supposed claims by real working scientists that the Shroud of Turin is "authentic", i.e. is evidence of the Resurrection, a supernatural event). Any study that actually made such claims would have veered from science directly into pseudoscience / theistic science.

 

In fact, any reports by a blogger that a scientific study, which doesn't perfectly replicate an effect using a particular method but which suggests that such a method could potentially explain the effect, explicitly rules out all other possible causes shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole.

 

We can have a rational discussion of the news items and ENEA's results, which I hope to be possible, but I hope this isn't going to go further in the direction of a Scripture-quoting Bible study. It just makes it tougher to follow the subthreads on the science behind the story.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Iucounu

[TXBeth]

I'm sure she is not joking. This is considered Holy Tradition by some. You probably don't have experience with this kind of teaching. I would have said something similar a few years ago.

 

Wow. Yeah I guess not. I know Catholics, but while they revere Mary it is not taken to quite this extreme - at least not by the ones I know.

[justamouse]

Bolder is Biblical. The rest is conjecture. First sentence is decidedly UNBiblical as only Jesus was sinless. I have no idea where "queen of the universe" came from and it makes me wonder if you are just joking with all this...

 

OK, I knew this was going to happen.

 

What she is speaking of is Tradition in the Catholic Church. With a capital T.

 

First, you have to remember that Mary was alive at the time of Christ's death, and the Apostles visited her, often, to be taught. Her house was said to be quite the gathering place (rightfully so, right? Wouldn't she, who had born him and been with him throughout his ministry be sought out?).

 

From the beginnings of the Church in the first century, from writers like Clement and Ignatius, Mary was said to be ever virgin. (Clement was taught by John and was the third Pope) (and, even Luther and Calvin believed in the ever virginity of Mary). So, if it had been a lie, Mary, herself, would have said so. And, in the bible itself, some apostles say that there is too much to write, they will speak face to face. So we can saftely assume that there was much more said than what was written. Secondly, sacred oral tradition (these first Christians also being Jews) were very careful to preserve the truth in what they spoke. It was NOT a game of telephone (and if you are not Catholic, Lee Stroble backs this up in his movie, A Case for Christ).

 

Oral tradition also says that Mary was conceived by a previously barren Anna and Joachim, her conception was announced by an angel to her parents (Joachim was fasting in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights, in hope for a child) and Mary was sent to the temple to live at age 3 as promised by her parents, in thankfulness to God, where an angel ministered to her throughout her life there. When she was a young teen, Zacharias, the Priest, was praying for what to do with her and an angel came to him, telling him to Gather the good men, and let each one bring a staff to the Temple. Whoever receives a sign from the Lord will be the husband of Mary. Joseph, (an older widower, with children) held the staff that bloomed, and a dove flew down upon his head.

 

And, if she was buried, don't you think there would be hordes of people that would pilgrim to her grave? Or a basilica would have been built there? *Something*? But there was none. And, the apostles didn't correct the teaching that Mary was assumed to heaven. And if you read the old writings by the church fathers they were ALL about correcting heresies. They died in defense of those corrections.

Calling her Blessed is from the Annunciation in Luke.

 

I only know of this recently myself, because it was something that I had to personally work through, before becoming Catholic.

Edited December 23, 2011 by justamouse
punctuation

[NittanyJen]

That's very confusing. So Mary was a Hermaphrodite? That definitely puts a...strange twist on things.

 

Okay, this is getting waaaaaay off topic here... But this subject is kind of near and dear... Even if the PP was joking

 

Hermaphrodism is phenotype, not genotype. It is the existence of both male and female genitalia, or ambiguous genitalia. It can result from the hormonal environment of the womb, among other things. The presence of additional X or Y chromosomes is NOT hermaphrodism.

 

A female can only have a Y chromosome if it lacks the SRY gene or she has an incredibly rare condition known as androgen insensitivity. The reason for this is that in early embryo logic development, we are all female. The presence of a Y chromosome sends the embryo down the male pathway. A male with two X's and a Y is still fully male, though there is an increased chance of medical and certain learning problems, but he is male.

 

Back to your shroud discussion, and the bean dip is definitely on me ;)

[m0mmaBuck]

Wait til the Ancient Aliens people get a hold of this study!

[Onceuponatime]

Okay, this is getting waaaaaay off topic here... But this subject is kind of near and dear... Even if the PP was joking

 

Hermaphrodism is phenotype, not genotype. It is the existence of both male and female genitalia, or ambiguous genitalia. It can result from the hormonal environment of the womb, among other things. The presence of additional X or Y chromosomes is NOT hermaphrodism.

 

A female can only have a Y chromosome if it lacks the SRY gene or she has an incredibly rare condition known as androgen insensitivity. The reason for this is that in early embryo logic development, we are all female. The presence of a Y chromosome sends the embryo down the male pathway. A male with two X's and a Y is still fully male, though there is an increased chance of medical and certain learning problems, but he is male.

 

Back to your shroud discussion, and the bean dip is definitely on me ;)

 

Thanks for clearing that up. :D I knew there was something scientifically off, but I wasn't about to go googling.

[WishboneDawn]

Yet more evidence for the great power of science in our culture. I have no religious faith, but I'm just positive that if I did, the last place I would go to learn about it would be science. I actually find pursuing religion with science to be a bit insulting to both science and religion.

 

Just an opinion. No tomatoes thrown.

 

I'm with you on that. I don't think religion and science even speak the same language. Attempting to justify one with the other seems bonkers to me.

[Mama2Many4]

That's very confusing. So Mary was a Hermaphrodite? That definitely puts a...strange twist on things.

 

This is so offensive! Why don't you think of others beliefs before spouting off at the mouth (or fingers).:glare:

[*********]

You're even ducking in your avatar!!! :lol:

 

No need - no tomatoes are airborne. :001_smile:

 

Ha' date=' never noticed that about my avatar. :D It does look like a picture of me ducking. It was supposed to be a picture of my headcovering. :D

 

Bolder is Biblical. The rest is conjecture. First sentence is decidedly UNBiblical as only Jesus was sinless. I have no idea where "queen of the universe" came from and it makes me wonder if you are just joking with all this...

 

TxBeth, I agree with you, but this is a Catholic teaching she's referring to. We could debate Catholicism all day long on here, I'm sure. But I don't think the mods would let us. :D

[Teachin'Mine]

OK, I knew this was going to happen.

 

What she is speaking of is Tradition in the Catholic Church. With a capital T.

 

First, you have to remember that Mary was alive at the time of Christ's death, and the Apostles visited her, often, to be taught. Her house was said to be quite the gathering place (rightfully so, right? Wouldn't she, who had born him and been with him throughout his ministry be sought out?).

 

From the beginnings of the Church in the first century, from writers like Clement and Ignatius, Mary was said to be ever virgin. (Clement was taught by John and was the third Pope) (and, even Luther and Calvin believed in the ever virginity of Mary). So, if it had been a lie, Mary, herself, would have said so. And, in the bible itself, some apostles say that there is too much to write, they will speak face to face. So we can saftely assume that there was much more said than what was written. Secondly, sacred oral tradition (these first Christians also being Jews) were very careful to preserve the truth in what they spoke. It was NOT a game of telephone (and if you are not Catholic, Lee Stroble backs this up in his movie, A Case for Christ).

 

Oral tradition also says that Mary was conceived by a previously barren Anna and Joachim, her conception was announced by an angel to her parents (Joachim was fasting in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights, in hope for a child) and Mary was sent to the temple to live at age 3 as promised by her parents, in thankfulness to God, where an angel ministered to her throughout her life there. When she was a young teen, Zacharias, the Priest, was praying for what to do with her and an angel came to him, telling him to Gather the good men, and let each one bring a staff to the Temple. Whoever receives a sign from the Lord will be the husband of Mary. Joseph, (an older widower, with children) held the staff that bloomed, and a dove flew down upon his head.

 

And, if she was buried, don't you think there would be hordes of people that would pilgrim to her grave? Or a basilica would have been built there? *Something*? But there was none. And, the apostles didn't correct the teaching that Mary was assumed to heaven. And if you read the old writings by the church fathers they were ALL about correcting heresies. They died in defense of those corrections.

Calling her Blessed is from the Annunciation in Luke.

 

I only know of this recently myself, because it was something that I had to personally work through, before becoming Catholic.

 

Thank you!!!!

 

I knew that it would happen too, but after the "stuff" that was posted here, I needed to clarify some things. :tongue_smilie:

 

We do not worship Mary - we worship her Son. We do give her reverence.

[Teachin'Mine]

I find it interesting that non-Catholic Christians are debating what I wrote about Mary and not at all concerned with the other "stuff" that had been written here about her. She's His mother. She's the one who wept at the foot of the cross while the Apostles hid out of fear. Seriously.

[WishboneDawn]

This is so offensive! Why don't you think of others beliefs before spouting off at the mouth (or fingers).:glare:

 

If we're going to use science to justify faith then we should be prepared for some ideas and questions like that which some might find offensive. In science we're limited by what we know of how the natural world works and can only offer explanations from that world. Sometimes they're going to be inherently odd, goofy and/or yes, offensive when that knowledge is applied to matters of faith.

 

So make your choice. Apply science to your faith and give up the right to be offended when others do that or keep your faith free of science.

 

Personally, I think people who are hermaphrodites (which is a real and very natural condition) might be more then a little offended at your offense at a simple musing that Mary might be like them.

[WishboneDawn]

That's incorrect. What the video actually quotes is, "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date."

 

"normal" = non-laser

 

This is a good example of how taking quotes out of context can result in propagation of misinformation throughout the blogosphere. More info on how the re-reporting of initially misquoted information has actually resulted in widespread misinformation on this particular news story:

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/

"Note: originally I quoted (ENEA) as saying (the Shroud) could 'only' have been made by UV. Dr Paolo Di Lazzaro of ENEA has emailed to say that's not the case, so I've updated it."

 

That incidentally is an interesting piece, which points out that the thrust of the ENEA experiment was simply to respond to the STURP criticism based on lack of penetration of color into the Shroud's fibers. It doesn't prove that a burst of light created the Shroud; in fact in my opinion, without benefit of reading the study yet, it would tend to disprove it. As noted, no known non-laser source of UV light could produce something even close to the effect of the Shroud-- and even with lasers, ENEA didn't manage to replicate it either, just to come somewhat close. Laser light is highly directional (look up the term "coherence" for more on this), and it would be grasping at straws to suggest without basis that light emitted during the Resurrection must have been coherent, since ENEA and the cloth itself "prove" it so. :) (Coherent light doesn't emit from a light source in all directions-- and stating we can't come close to reproducing the Shroud without coherent light doesn't mean that more powerful non-coherent light was used.)

 

Any reports that actual working scientists have imputed anything to supernatural origins shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole (this includes any reports of supposed claims by real working scientists that the Shroud of Turin is "authentic", i.e. is evidence of the Resurrection, a supernatural event). Any study that actually made such claims would have veered from science directly into pseudoscience / theistic science.

 

In fact, any reports by a blogger that a scientific study, which doesn't perfectly replicate an effect using a particular method but which suggests that such a method could potentially explain the effect, explicitly rules out all other possible causes shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole.

 

We can have a rational discussion of the news items and ENEA's results, which I hope to be possible, but I hope this isn't going to go further in the direction of a Scripture-quoting Bible study. It just makes it tougher to follow the subthreads on the science behind the story.

 

Love your posts in this thread. :)

[Rivka]

This is so offensive! Why don't you think of others beliefs before spouting off at the mouth (or fingers).:glare:

 

I think that if you're going to use scientific language to attempt to explain things that you believe on faith, you have to expect others to engage with your statement on a scientific level.

 

Any attempt to explain, in biological terms, how Jesus could have a Y chromosome without Mary's egg having been fertilized by a sperm, is going to have implications related to the biology of the individuals involved. Respect for religion does not require pretending not to notice those implications.

[8circles]

This is so offensive! Why don't you think of others beliefs before spouting off at the mouth (or fingers).:glare:

 

How is this offensive? Being a hermaphrodite isn't an insult to someones character.

 

Ftr, I don't think she was.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

Mary was conceived without sin. She conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit and remained a virgin her whole life. She was assumed into heaven - body and soul. She is the Queen of the Universe. She loves each of us beyond what we can fathom and wants to lead all of us to her Son.

 

OK, I'm not entering the primary discussion of this thread, but your post raises a side issue. Surely you realize that most Christian denominations don't teach this. So when you assert it as a fact, it raises hackles unnecessarily. All you have to do to avoid this is start by saying 'Roman Catholics teach that...' It still asserts your primary point, and does it respectfully.

[Teachin'Mine]

I meant no disrespect to anyone. I wrote what I did in response to the disrespect given to the Mother of God in a previous post. What I wrote is fact. Yes it is taught by the Catholic Church. And yes, not all are aware of these truths.

[*********]

OK, I'm not entering the primary discussion of this thread, but your post raises a side issue. Surely you realize that most Christian denominations don't teach this. So when you assert it as a fact, it raises hackles unnecessarily. All you have to do to avoid this is start by saying 'Roman Catholics teach that...' It still asserts your primary point, and does it respectfully.

 

:iagree:

 

I meant no disrespect to anyone. I wrote what I did in response to the disrespect given to the Mother of God in a previous post. What I wrote is fact. Yes it is taught by the Catholic Church. And yes' date=' not all are aware of these truths.[/quote']

 

Teachin'Mine, surely you can see that not all Chrsitians believe what you state as fact. You are pot stirring to state it as such.

 

This is not a Catholic board. It's a homeschool board. Let's all remember this.

[littleWMN]

It's her beliefs, so obviously she thinks they are true. I don't hold those sane beliefs. I'm a Christian but not Catholic.

 

Everyone needs a cup of hot chocolate or cider or something. :)

[Iucounu]

Now you're asserting as fact that those beliefs are sane.

[Melissa in Australia]

There is always some new findings about this shroud...

I watched a documentary a while age that claimed it was made by Leonardo de Vinci. And it claimed it was made by a long exposure pinhole camera sort of thing. They even made one to show how it could have been done.

[Iucounu]

There is always some new findings about this shroud...

I watched a documentary a while age that claimed it was made by Leonardo de Vinci. And it claimed it was made by a long exposure pinhole camera sort of thing. They even made one to show how it could have been done.

I believe it's called a "camera obscura". Yep, there's certainly a lot of mystery surrounding the Shroud, and plenty of study... in fact there's a even apparently a term for it, "sindology".

[Teachin'Mine]

:iagree:

 

 

 

Teachin'Mine, surely you can see that not all Chrsitians believe what you state as fact. You are pot stirring to state it as such.

 

This is not a Catholic board. It's a homeschool board. Let's all remember this.

 

 

I'm sorry you see it as pot stirring - it wasn't meant to be. :grouphug:

[Melissa in Australia]

I believe it's called a "camera obscura". Yep, there's certainly a lot of mystery surrounding the Shroud, and plenty of study... in fact there's a even apparently a term for it, "sindology".

 

Thanks, I couldn't remember the right words :001_smile:

[Teachin'Mine]

It's her beliefs, so obviously she thinks they are true. I don't hold those sane beliefs. I'm a Christian but not Catholic.

 

Everyone needs a cup of hot chocolate or cider or something. :)

 

 

I'm looking forward to hot chocolate and wrapping gifts later! :001_smile:

 

I'm Catholic ... and a procrastinator. :lol:

[Georgiana Daniels]

Wait til the Ancient Aliens people get a hold of this study!

 

I LOVE that show! Not that I actually believe a word of it....

[WishboneDawn]

Now you're asserting as fact that those beliefs are sane.

 

:lol:;)

[WishboneDawn]

I meant no disrespect to anyone. I wrote what I did in response to the disrespect given to the Mother of God in a previous post. What I wrote is fact. Yes it is taught by the Catholic Church. And yes' date=' not all are aware of these truths.[/quote']

 

I took it as your views, not representative of all Christians. I think you were fine.

[mommymilkies]

Okay, this is getting waaaaaay off topic here... But this subject is kind of near and dear... Even if the PP was joking

 

Hermaphrodism is phenotype, not genotype. It is the existence of both male and female genitalia, or ambiguous genitalia. It can result from the hormonal environment of the womb, among other things. The presence of additional X or Y chromosomes is NOT hermaphrodism.

 

A female can only have a Y chromosome if it lacks the SRY gene or she has an incredibly rare condition known as androgen insensitivity. The reason for this is that in early embryo logic development, we are all female. The presence of a Y chromosome sends the embryo down the male pathway. A male with two X's and a Y is still fully male, though there is an increased chance of medical and certain learning problems, but he is male.

 

Back to your shroud discussion, and the bean dip is definitely on me ;)

Thanks for the reminder. It's not something I typically study about, but I had a friend ages ago who is one. I'm afraid I never inquired into specifics to preserve her privacy.

 

This is so offensive! Why don't you think of others beliefs before spouting off at the mouth (or fingers).:glare:

 

Wow. Really? Someone else brought it up. I got confused at the explanation and was asking for details about how that works or what is going on there. I wasn't trying to insult anyone's religion at all. I have high respect for Mary and have no idea what religion you are. For all you know, I am Catholic and just had never heard anything about Mary having a Y chromosome. FWIW, I am not Catholic but was raised Jewish and had another Catholic step-father. I have been intrigued by the RC church and studied it since I was a child. I have never heard anything about the DNA viewpoint possibility for Jesus, though. I think it's irrelevant even if Mary was a hermaphrodite as that would have no bearing on my view of her. I also did not know that the RC church believed Mary was a virgin her entire life since she *was* married, I kinda assumed...and there are many who believe Jesus had siblings after his birth. Most of my Christian friends also do not believe that Mary was a literal virgin, but a young woman as the translation would give them. So let's not spout everything as the truth to everyone, ok?

[TheHomeScientist]

Okay here's a hypothesis, just one of many possible hypotheses.

 

What if, in time of war, a devout medieval church member, to prevent a valued statue from being looted, wrapped the statue in a linen cloth and buried it in a pile of cow manure? The invaders slaughtered the population, and the statue lay hidden for many years.

 

As far as I know, no one has even tested this hypothesis, so it hasn't been falsified. And that's just one of a huge number of possible hypotheses that are reasonable and have not been tested.

 

Just because one hasn't figured out how something was done does not mean that someone else didn't figure out how to do it, and it's certainly not evidence, let alone "proof", of a supernatural explanation. I put "proof" in quotes, because scientists do not deal in proof; that is the province of mathematicians.

 

Scientists gather evidence in an attempt to disprove our own and others' hypotheses. If the hypothesis is not falsified by repeated observations and is in fact supported by every one of those observations, it gradually achieves the status of a theory, which is as close as science gets to certainty. No scientist would ever state that a hypothesis (or theory) has been "proven", because all it takes is one contrary observation to falsify it.

[WishboneDawn]

Okay here's a hypothesis, just one of many possible hypotheses.

 

What if, in time of war, a devout medieval church member, to prevent a valued statue from being looted, wrapped the statue in a linen cloth and buried it in a pile of cow manure? The invaders slaughtered the population, and the statue lay hidden for many years.

 

As far as I know, no one has even tested this hypothesis, so it hasn't been falsified. And that's just one of a huge number of possible hypotheses that are reasonable and have not been tested.

 

Just because one hasn't figured out how something was done does not mean that someone else didn't figure out how to do it, and it's certainly not evidence, let alone "proof", of a supernatural explanation. I put "proof" in quotes, because scientists do not deal in proof; that is the province of mathematicians.

 

Scientists gather evidence in an attempt to disprove our own and others' hypotheses. If the hypothesis is not falsified by repeated observations and is in fact supported by every one of those observations, it gradually achieves the status of a theory, which is as close as science gets to certainty. No scientist would ever state that a hypothesis (or theory) has been "proven", because all it takes is one contrary observation to falsify it.

 

Between you and Iucouna I'm in science-post heaven. :D

[justamouse]

For those that don't like their science mixed with religion, (not that I know much about science but what I can glean out of Scientific American) we were watching a NOVA documentary on Sir Isaac Newton, Newton's Dark Secret and, by what the scientists in the documentary said, he's kinda high up on the totem pole of scientists. I was also pretty floored that Newton himself said that science and his faith in God were inseparable.

 

So, if a man like that sees them as inseparable, and a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang theory(just as an example) why say that they need to be separate?

[Teachin'Mine]

For those that don't like their science mixed with religion, (not that I know much about science but what I can glean out of Scientific American) we were watching a NOVA documentary on Sir Isaac Newton, Newton's Dark Secret and, by what the scientists in the documentary said, he's kinda high up on the totem pole of scientists. I was also pretty floored that Newton himself said that science and his faith in God were inseparable.

 

So, if a man like that sees them as inseparable, and a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang theory(just as an example) why say that they need to be separate?

 

:D

 

To me, science is us trying to figure out how God did all that He did and to see His Hand in the beauty and the complexity and the awesomeness of it all.

[Carol in Cal.]

For those that don't like their science mixed with religion, (not that I know much about science but what I can glean out of Scientific American) we were watching a NOVA documentary on Sir Isaac Newton, Newton's Dark Secret and, by what the scientists in the documentary said, he's kinda high up on the totem pole of scientists. I was also pretty floored that Newton himself said that science and his faith in God were inseparable.

 

So, if a man like that sees them as inseparable, and a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang theory(just as an example) why say that they need to be separate?

 

Sure, any student of thorough and complete history quickly concludes that Christians of various stripes discovered most of the earliest, most foundational developments of modern science. Many of them were motivated at least in part by a desire to understand God's mind better by understanding his creation more thoroughly, or buoyed in their work by a belief that God is brilliant and so His universe must be at least somewhat logical.

 

There is really nothing incompatible between science and faith in God, unless and until it becomes magisterial rather than ministerial in attitude.

[TXBeth]

:D

 

To me' date=' science is us trying to figure out how God did all that He did and to see His Hand in the beauty and the complexity and the awesomeness of it all.[/quote']

 

We don't agree on everything, but you expressed this beautifully and I agree completely.

[Mimm]

Science is kind of the opposite of supernatural. To use science to study anything supernatural is... :confused::confused::confused: Science never gets to the point where it says, "Yeah, ok, this was a miracle." It only ever says, "We haven't figured out how it happened yet. Here's a few more ideas."

[Carol in Cal.]

Science is kind of the opposite of supernatural. To use science to study anything supernatural is... :confused::confused::confused: Science never gets to the point where it says, "Yeah, ok, this was a miracle." It only ever says, "We haven't figured out how it happened yet. Here's a few more ideas."

 

Science, though, can demonstrate more clearly the mind of the Creator. Or not. It is, of necessity, limited to that which is observable and predictable based on prior observations. Thus it general has little to say about the non-observable or unpredictable. That makes it far smaller than, say, theology--which is why theology used to be considered the pinnacle of study.

[Mergath]

There is really nothing incompatible between science and faith in God, unless and until it becomes magisterial rather than ministerial in attitude.

 

But a scientist has to be prepared to discard any given hypothesis if the evidence points elsewhere. Most Christians I've met aren't willing to do that when it comes to their faith. I'm not saying it's impossible to be a person of faith and a person of science, but let's not pretend there's never going to be a conflict between the two.

[*********]

But a scientist has to be prepared to discard any given hypothesis if the evidence points elsewhere. Most Christians I've met aren't willing to do that when it comes to their faith. I'm not saying it's impossible to be a person of faith and a person of science, but let's not pretend there's never going to be a conflict between the two.

 

 

Mergath, no snark, I promise. But many Christians would say the same would apply to Athiests; they're not prepared to discard any given hypothesis if the evidence points elswhere, when it comes to their (lack of? non? I don't know the pc term, so forgive me) faith.

 

To me, the evidence of a Creator is creation. An Athiest would disagree, no?

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Unfortunately, someone asserting that the Shroud of Turin was created with an ultraviolet blast of coherent light bears the burden of proof, not a skeptic. That means that if you're asserting that the Shroud was created that way, I can ask for proof without needing to prove it was created in some other way, or proving that it wasn't created that way. The linked news article is not proof, and doesn't seem to indicate that there is proof.

 

 

I disagree. If there is evidence bust the myth. If the shroud is fake it should not be hard. Some Christians believe the shroud is evidence (but not proof) of the resurrection.

 

Any reports that actual working scientists have imputed anything to supernatural origins shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole (this includes any reports of supposed claims by real working scientists that the Shroud of Turin is "authentic", i.e. is evidence of the Resurrection, a supernatural event). Any study that actually made such claims would have veered from science directly into pseudoscience / theistic science.

 

In fact, any reports by a blogger that a scientific study, which doesn't perfectly replicate an effect using a particular method but which suggests that such a method could potentially explain the effect, explicitly rules out all other possible causes shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole.

 

 

So, what experiment would provide acceptable to show that the Shroud of Turin is authentic? Is there anything that would convince you that the shroud is real? If you think it is the burden of the religous to prove the shroud is authentic but you would never touch any theory that showed it to be authentic then what is the point? You have already decided regardless of the evidence.

 

From my point of view the resurrection is not supernatural. If there is a God that came down as a human and dwelt among us without sin, it would be natural for that God to rise from death. It is your bias that stops you from seeing that as a possibility.

 

Okay here's a hypothesis, just one of many possible hypotheses.

 

What if, in time of war, a devout medieval church member, to prevent a valued statue from being looted, wrapped the statue in a linen cloth and buried it in a pile of cow manure? The invaders slaughtered the population, and the statue lay hidden for many years.

 

As far as I know, no one has even tested this hypothesis, so it hasn't been falsified. And that's just one of a huge number of possible hypotheses that are reasonable and have not been tested.

 

 

There is zero evidence that this hypothesis is true. There is no reference to this in history. It is just made up as a red herring to detract from the the facts that we know about

 

If we look at all of the studies on the shroud (it's history, the geography of the it's history, botony along the trail the shroud took through history, human biology, crimanology studies of the crucifixion.....) we find that there is evidence about origins of the shroud. Let's use that evidence to come up with a reasonable hypotheses instead of making up scientific fairy tales.

[Iucounu]

I disagree. If there is evidence bust the myth. If the shroud is fake it should not be hard.

And yet some things are difficult to explain scientifically, and progress is slow. The fact that there's debate on the Shroud of Turin doesn't show its authenticity; it just means the jury's out.

 

So, what experiment would provide acceptable to show that the Shroud of Turin is authentic? Is there anything that would convince you that the shroud is real?

Of course not, since even if there was consensus that the Shroud was from the correct century, and there were consensus that it was impossible to fake, there's still be nothing to identify it specifically to Jesus. However, many people (besides those who accept it wholeheartedly based on faith, hence the happy chatter over the recent blog entries) would probably suspend disbelief if there were actually scientific consensus as to those two things, age and impossibility of a fake.

 

You're absolutely right, though. There's essentially no way to build scientific consensus that it's not possibly a fake, since one would first have to rule out all possible natural causes; this is essentially impossible, especially without a plausible explanation that's non-supernatural. One could only go as far as the ENEA study seems to go, raising questions about why it's so hard to come up with an explanation that satisfies everyone. One can never gain scientific consensus on a supernatural event. As a previous poster wrote, science by definition excludes consideration of the supernatural.

 

If you think it is the burden of the religous to prove the shroud is authentic but you would never touch any theory that showed it to be authentic then what is the point? You have already decided regardless of the evidence.

I don't believe the Shroud is authentic. I couldn't possibly believe in it without compelling evidence. The current study is not evidence; accepting the reports at face value (sans the wild extrapolations by bloggers), it merely claims to closely but imperfectly match certain features of the Shroud in a certain way, which is interesting but certainly doesn't resolve all questions about the Shroud.

 

It's not that I've decided regardless of the evidence. It's that there isn't any evidence, though there are hypothetical explanations. I certainly find it hard to believe that Jesus radiated lasers simultaneously in all directions to burn his image into the Shroud as he was resurrected, with the multitude of other possibilities. It doesn't make sense to me to conveniently assume a super-bright flash of UV light, just so I can try to be convinced. There are far too many questions about the Shroud being from the incorrect time for me to jump to wild conclusions, which I tend not to do by disposition anyway.

 

From my point of view the resurrection is not supernatural. If there is a God that came down as a human and dwelt among us without sin, it would be natural for that God to rise from death.

The word "supernatural" as used here means magical, not explainable by the physical laws of the known universe-- it's not meant in the sense of what a believer might find to be normal or abnormal acts of a supernatural/magical being.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Iucounu

[kalanamak]

 

From my point of view the resurrection is not supernatural. If there is a God that came down as a human and dwelt among us without sin, it would be natural for that God to rise from death. It is your bias that stops you from seeing that as a possibility.

 

It confuses us because it is contrary to the dictionary definition of supernatural. What is so undesirable about the events of the Bible sometimes being supernatural that you have to call it "not supernatural". Nothing shameful about supernatural in my book.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

[Iucounu]

Found this link at the foot of the msnbc.com article, but unfortunately don't read a lick of Italian:

http://opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/2011/2011_14_ENEA.pdf