A Quantum Hologram of Christ's Resurrection?

[spidergoat]

hehe..notice how since no-one here can argue against the facts posited, that the focus is now on devaluing the author?

what happened to attack the idea not the author??

and did you notice that on the reconstruction of jesus from the shroud that they made him white?

He's not being a good scientist because he dismisses the most parsimonious explanation, that the image is not realistic because the people that created it made it how they thought it should look rather than how such a shroud would actually look. Refinement in perspective and anatomy would have to wait until the Renaissance.

Instead he proposes a lot of outlandish garbage that is frankly, the least likely explanation for anything ever.

 

[NMSquirrel]

He's not being a good scientist because he dismisses the most parsimonious explanation, that the image is not realistic because the people that created it made it how they thought it should look rather than how such a shroud would actually look. Refinement in perspective and anatomy would have to wait until the Renaissance.

major assumption in that statement..where is the proof that ppl created it?
AND it assumes that ppl who created it knew of the tech of this day to be able to 'fool' it
AND..i confess i did not look at the links..i have assumed it is the same as the tv special i watched regarding it.(i think it was on the history channel)(i think i have posted a link to it in another thread)

Instead he proposes a lot of outlandish garbage that is frankly, the least likely explanation for anything ever.

with the lack of any empirical evidence one way or the other, any theory must be considered plausible until proven otherwise.

 

[AlexG]

with the lack of any empirical evidence one way or the other, any theory must be considered plausible until proven otherwise.

The empirical evidence shows that the shroud was created 1400 years later than the date claimed for it.

 

[Rav]

The empirical evidence shows that the shroud was created 1400 years later than the date claimed for it.

Which is of course consistent with when it first appeared in recorded history. It was also during a time when dealing in religious relics was big business.

 

[spidergoat]

major assumption in that statement..where is the proof that ppl created it?
AND it assumes that ppl who created it knew of the tech of this day to be able to 'fool' it
AND..i confess i did not look at the links..i have assumed it is the same as the tv special i watched regarding it.(i think it was on the history channel)(i think i have posted a link to it in another thread)


with the lack of any empirical evidence one way or the other, any theory must be considered plausible until proven otherwise.

No, that's not how science works. Any naturalistic explanation always supersedes a supernatural one (for the time being). Furthermore, there is carbon dating of the shroud to the middle ages.

 

[kx000]

What are we talking about here? This is nothing but a representation of the anti-christ. Knights Templar ain't nothing to fuck with, satanic treason fuckers.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Does Piczek explain why Jesus wasn't wrapped in the shroud, according to Jewish burial custom?

That is: why does the "image" look as if the shroud was laid out, a body laid on it, then covered over with the other half? That's completely unkosher.

Does he do a good job of explaining the paint pigments that have been detected in samples from the shroud that appear to date from the 14th century? Does he discuss the common occurrence of medieval religious fakes, and present a convincing argument against the possibility of the Turin shroud being a medieval fake?

Or not?

Leonardo did it . Look at the face and compare. I bet Leonardo thought him self was the return of Christ and that is why he did it . He put him self in the shroud

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

What are we talking about here? This is nothing but a representation of the anti-christ. Knights Templar ain't nothing to fuck with, satanic treason fuckers.

Fuck you . Don't talk about My families friends like that. Yeah Me Teutonic Realities. You don't got know idea what happened back in the day . Pure speculation. If what you say is true I am the fucking Devil then . You want a piece of the evil . I seen it first hand . Many times . I am not big duplicating it . I am thinking more along the lines of showing mercy . It is tough some times when fools be fools . You understand the pyramid yet ? How bout that new crack in the obelisk in Washington D.C. That mean anything to you ? Some day someone will get a clue . I doubt it will be you ? Never know thou ?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

The empirical evidence shows that the shroud was created 1400 years later than the date claimed for it.

Thanks for explaining Periodic for me Man . Your a fucking saint dude . Your a good friend too. You get to go to heaven in my book of life bro . The Best always do

 

[NMSquirrel]

No, that's not how science works. Any naturalistic explanation always supersedes a supernatural one.

yes..as that statement stands it is true..
if you had not associated that statement with scientist, i would have argued with it..

Furthermore, there is carbon dating of the shroud to the middle ages.

i am not experienced in carbon dating techniques, so i cannot argue about the validity of carbon dating,

I don't care if people made it or not, perhaps it came from a crucified man in the middle ages, but it most likely didn't come from Jesus, if Jesus even existed, for which there is also no reliable evidence.

can it be duplicated nowadays?
the argument i have heard was "no".
if it can't be duplicated by today's standard then there is NO way it could have been created by some body back in those times..

whether it was actually jesus or not, i do not know..but i am inclined to believe it is.

 

[spidergoat]

What is so special about it that it cannot be duplicated? It's just pigment or blood on cloth. I can't duplicate a Picasso or Rembrandt either.

 

[NMSquirrel]

What is so special about it that it cannot be duplicated? It's just pigment or blood on cloth. I can't duplicate a Picasso or Rembrandt either.

you are gonna make me search for the show i watched aren't you...

 

[spidergoat]

Don't bother.

 

[NMSquirrel]

here it is..(at least part one..)(you can find the other parts on your own)

here is a synopsis of it;

"This Very Intresting Documentary from History Channel shows modern scientific tests & analysis on the Holy Shroud of Turin & confirm that ITS NOT A FABRICATION created by some medieval artist, in fact the old tests that dismissed the Shroud as 'FAKE' are put into serious doubts, if not a complete pile of BS, from the modern scientific tests & point of view. Then it shows Computer artists with cutting-edge 21st century technology, recreate the man on the Shroud (Jesus Christ) like coming back to life & for the 1st time in history we can get a glimpse of the real face of Jesus Christ Our Lord, the True Son of God. Its totally Amazing, this is where both science & religion comes together, "

 

[spidergoat]

That's also bad science. Suppose it is a shroud from a crucified man from the correct time period. It doesn't prove it's from Jesus or that there was any resurrection. Thousands of people (with beards) died the same way. The pre-Christian Romans especially loved the irony of killing Christians on a cross.

 

[NMSquirrel]

That's also bad science. Suppose it is a shroud from a crucified man from the correct time period. It doesn't prove it's from Jesus or that there was any resurrection.

my argument wasn't about whether it is jesus or not..it was about it not being faked, since we have none of jesus's DNA on file, there is NO way it can be proven to be jesus..with the exception of the process of the creation of the shroud to begin with being tied into a supernatural means of its creation (not arguing its creation was/was not supernatural in origin, again no proof)

but the story has no explanation as to how the shroud was created.(they do not know) and since there is no way to explain its creation of course speculation is gonna get into the mix, and of course religion is gonna capitalize on that and argue 'It's supernatural ,God did it'

just because you do not agree with any of the speculating does not in itself invalidate such speculation. arguments against the speculations should be loaded with scientific evidence against the speculation,rather than just a simple "that's bad science" statement.

as far as it being Jesus. we only have our own personal beliefs about that.(i am more of the opinion that it is jesus,than i am of it is not.)

If they were ever to find an artifact/text/event that empirically confirmed the existence of God, I would be first in line(metaphorically) to disprove such a thing as i believe in God, but i also believe that any empirical proof for God would be a bad thing for us as a species.

 

[wlminex]

Me-Ki-Gai, #28:

Yours: "How bout that new crack in the obelisk in Washington D.C."

DUH . . . does the recent Virginia earthquake ring a bell??

wlminex

 

[gmilam]

Its totally Amazing, this is where both science & religion comes together

Or not...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5706640/Turin-Shroud-is-face-of-Leonardo-da-Vinci.html

 

[spidergoat]

There is the fact that there is no provenance to the artifact. There is no historical link between the event and the period of time in which it became known, more than 14 centuries later. Couple that with the proliferation and interest in fake artifacts during this time period, and it's unreasonable to believe that it is real.

 

[NMSquirrel]

There is the fact that there is no provenance to the artifact. There is no historical link between the event and the period of time in which it became known, more than 14 centuries later. Couple that with the proliferation and interest in fake artifacts during this time period, and it's unreasonable to believe that it is real.

not unreasonable..just because there were alot of fakes doesn't mean they are ALL fakes..but unlikely true enough..which bring us back to how was it created?

<edit>
hmm..davinci did know an awfull lot..davinci as prophet?