How The Multiverse Can Unite Religions

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

And that - sadly - is reflective of my experience of atheist apathy to any research.

Forensic science demonstrates the so called Eucharistic miracles as creation of live cells from inert matter, in a manner seemingly impossible to falsify. It also disproves Darwins ToE by the very criterion Darwin proposed. So clearly it is the essence of this board.

If you won’t study scientific evidence I guess that ends our discussion.
You are welcome to your atheist faith. Just accept it for what it is.

You stated rc dating as a generic subject of interest, the shroud shows how unreliable it is. I guess that makes it less of interest.

Mike, there are plenty of Catholic universities out there, before you accuse others of being atheistic to your beliefs, your bloody crackers and the physics of spontaneous high intensity light sources that leave only divine evidence. Science, Catholic or Christian or otherwise does not deal with anecdotal anomalies such as the belief that a particular piece of cloth and only that one is evidence that RC dating is way out of wack and what really caused this is some never seen elsewhere nuclear phenomenon. furthermore as several have told you, dating the shroud is off topic for this board and if you wish to discuss that, take it to an appropriate forum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And that - sadly - is reflective of my experience of atheist apathy to any research.

Forensic science demonstrates the so called Eucharistic miracles as creation of live cells from inert matter, in a manner seemingly impossible to falsify. It also disproves Darwins ToE by the very criterion Darwin proposed. So clearly it is the essence of this board.

If you won’t study scientific evidence I guess that ends our discussion.
You are welcome to your atheist faith. Just accept it for what it is.

You stated rc dating as a generic subject of interest, the shroud shows how unreliable it is. I guess that makes it less of interest.

If I'd have joined this board 20 years ago, my "faith label" would have been the same as yours. I wouldn't have accepted a young Earth. I would still be arguing against unproven variability in C-14 decays and for the reliability of the general RC method. I might have accepted the 1st century age claim. (Lousy NOVA doco suckered me the first time into accepting belief in potential authenticity.) As for the "eucharistic miracles" I would have been extremely doubtful given the large number of fake miracles and relics that repeatedly appeared.

The only thing that became different about these things when I stopped believing the doctrines of your church was that over the same period I acquired the evidence that convinced me that the shroud was a 14th century fake. Of course, I'd never taken the shroud as some sort of evidence of the divinity of Jesus or the resurrection, but only as possibly a burial cloth from 1st century Palestine and maybe even of Jesus. Losing my faith did not affect that assessment as it still could have been the burial cloth of *the* Jesus, even if he wasn't divine or the son of god.

Atheism (sic) isn't a faith and the sooner you comprehend that the easier it will be to have useful conversations with us.

 

[Mountainmike]

With respect my interest is physical evidence.

If textile dating anomalies interest you I suggest you read archaeologist and user of RC dating “ Meacham “ book written as a warning before the shroud was dated. It is mark chemistry, and optical distortion , and testing, that decrees the mark is a non contact radiation. As a physicist You should be fascinated. Despite your assertion The shroud dating error is far from unique. Textile dating is problematic.

That’s the the problem.

You make many assertions based on zero research. It is several forensic labs in different countries ( day job is criminology) that decree several so called Eucharistic miracles are indeed heart myocardium, showing signs of trauma with white cells showing life.

That is the essence of this entire forum section, evidence of creation / evolution.

I go where evidence leads. You write it off before look at it.

Look at it. Whatever you conclude you are in for a fascinating journey. If it was faked try and work out how, it beats me, despite years looking at them. If real they are created, not evolved cells. Tixtla. Sokolka, Buenos Aires. Legnica. Look at the lab reports . All different labs.

Thats the thing.

I thought it was what this board was for?
I’m up for an interesting scientific discussion.
I cannot get even one of you to actually examine evidence before discount it, and all too frequently insult the poster. Which is not scientific.

Nor has one of you has asked me why after years of experience as a mathematical physicist modelling adaptive optimisation I have serious reservations about the always over simplistic views expressed on climbing mount improbable , with many implications for the difficulty of unguided evolution.

Consciousness is also a problem. There is certainly evidence it is not just a Chemical process confined to the brain. That too is a problem for the presumption of life as solely a chemical evolutionary process,

Anyway. I can’t force you to look at evidence.

You are free to believe what you will. But don’t for a minute consider your stance is justified scientifically if you refuse to look at evidence that contests your beliefs.

I will go else where , where people are interested in talking science.

Mike, there are plenty of Catholic universities out there, before you accuse others of being atheistic to your beliefs, your bloody crackers and the physics of spontaneous high intensity light sources that leave only divine evidence. Science, Catholic or Christian or otherwise does not deal with anecdotal anomalies such as the belief that a particular piece of cloth and only that one is evidence that RC dating is way out of wack and what really caused this is some never seen elsewhere nuclear phenomenon. furthermore as several have told you, dating the shroud is off topic for this board and if you wish to discuss that, take it to an appropriate forum.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

With respect my interest is physical evidence.

If textile dating anomalies interest you I suggest you read archaeologist and user of RC dating “ Meacham “ book written as a warning before the shroud was dated. It is mark chemistry, and optical distortion , and testing, that decrees the mark is a non contact radiation. As a physicist You should be fascinated. Despite your assertion The shroud dating error is far from unique. Textile dating is problematic.

That’s the the problem.

You make many assertions based on zero research. It is several forensic labs in different countries ( day job is criminology) that decree several so called Eucharistic miracles are indeed heart myocardium, showing signs of trauma with white cells showing life.

That is the essence of this entire forum section, evidence of creation / evolution.

I go where evidence leads. You write it off before look at it.

Look at it. Whatever you conclude you are in for a fascinating journey. If it was faked try and work out how, it beats me, despite years looking at them. If real they are created, not evolved cells. Tixtla. Sokolka, Buenos Aires. Legnica. Look at the lab reports . All different labs.

Thats the thing.

I thought it was what this board was for?
I’m up for an interesting scientific discussion.
I cannot get even one of you to actually examine evidence before discount it, and all too frequently insult the poster. Which is not scientific.

Nor has one of you has asked me why after years of experience as a mathematical physicist modelling adaptive optimisation I have serious reservations about the always over simplistic views expressed on climbing mount improbable , with many implications for the difficulty of unguided evolution.

Consciousness is also a problem. There is certainly evidence it is not just a Chemical process confined to the brain. That too is a problem for the presumption of life as solely a chemical evolutionary process,

Anyway. I can’t force you to look at evidence.

You are free to believe what you will. But don’t for a minute consider your stance is justified scientifically if you refuse to look at evidence that contests your beliefs.

I will go else where , where people are interested in talking science.

No you can't force us to look at evidence, but when you tell us to look up lab reports that as far as I can tell are only anecdotal, it is you who have failed. You have not presented evidence.

Oh I did find dating on two of your fabric claims, but they are hardly evidence of your claim of miracles since neither dated to anywhere near your claimed date.

 

[Mountainmike]

“As far as I can tell” You didn’t even look them up.
At least 5 respected pathology/ forensic labs whose day jobs are legal/ criminology were involved in producing the tixtla reports. ( there may be more - I just did a snapshot review of the different letter heads / footers of the reports.

I really am wasting my time expecting a scientific discussion here.

I didn’t “claim “ miracles as regards the cloths.

Cold hard logic for you about the philosophy of science. Since Man did not put God in the scientific model, neither can the model declare him as conclusion. You can only get out what you put in a model. If all you have in the model is apples and pears, then the model will conclude either apple , pear, or unknown. It cannot conclude banana until you put banana in. That’s why I use the phrase “ so called Eucharistic miracle”

I correctly claimed the cloths are consistent with modern expected pathology for the wounds of a real crucifictuon, and the correspondence beyond reasonable doubt. The pathology was unknown in the age ill informed people say it was faked. Part of the pathology is Invisible in normal spectrum.
I claimed the shroud Mark was consistent with non contact radiation, and that is the only hypothesis that has so far produced similar marks under test. It is unexplained by science , and I think will remain so. The mark is demonstrably a post mortem event. Study it.

Since the shroud date is screwed, it is hardly sensible to rely on the sudarium rc date, the date I give is a provenance not RC. It is unknown where it was before that. The Oviedo cloth has dated twice differently. RC is useless for this.

I deal with science.
I want to discuss science.

I’ll have to look for people willing to study scientific evidence elsewhere.

farewell all. I like people with enquiring minds.
Minds are like a parachute. They work better when they are open. Not at all when closed.

No you can't force us to look at evidence, but when you tell us to look up lab reports that as far as I can tell are only anecdotal, it is you who have failed. You have not presented evidence.

Oh I did find dating on two of your fabric claims, but they are hardly evidence of your claim of miracles since neither dated to anywhere near your claimed date.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

“As far as I can tell” You didn’t even look them up.
At least 5 respected pathology/ forensic labs whose day jobs are legal/ criminology were involved in producing the tixtla reports. ( there may be more - I just did a snapshot review of the different letter heads / footers of the reports.

I really am wasting my time expecting a scientific discussion here.

I didn’t “claim “ miracles as regards the cloths.

Cold hard logic for you about the philosophy of science. Since Man did not put God in the scientific model, neither can the model declare him as conclusion. You can only get out what you put in a model. If all you have in the model is apples and pears, then the model will conclude either apple , pear, or unknown. It cannot conclude banana until you put banana in. That’s why I use the phrase “ so called Eucharistic miracle”

I correctly claimed the cloths are consistent with modern expected pathology for the wounds of a real crucifictuon, and the correspondence beyond reasonable doubt. The pathology was unknown in the age ill informed people say it was faked. Part of the pathology is Invisible in normal spectrum.
I claimed the shroud Mark was consistent with non contact radiation, and that is the only hypothesis that has so far produced similar marks under test. It is unexplained by science , and I think will remain so. The mark is demonstrably a post mortem event. Study it.

Since the shroud date is screwed, it is hardly sensible to rely on the sudarium rc date, the date I give is a provenance not RC. It is unknown where it was before that. The Oviedo cloth has dated twice differently. RC is useless for this.

I deal with science.
I want to discuss science.

I’ll have to look for people willing to study scientific evidence elsewhere.

farewell all.

Uh, if you were actually interested in arguing your point, you would provide links to this information if it existed.
In fact you claim a lot of things, but you provide no links or evidence for any of them, only saying that if we were serious we would find out for ourselves.

You don't really want to discuss science, you are looking for an echo chamber with people who will accept your assertions.

Sorry this isn't it, fare thee well.

 

[Mountainmike]

The last defence of a refusenik. No links.

The books are hundreds of pages long. I have at least 20 on shroud science alone. How many do you want? I pointed at meachams book on why the shroud dating was a fiasco, his paper written BEFORE it was tested! You haven’t looked at it, yet it disproves a clear statement you made.

Links to many papers are on shroud.com. But not entire books for copyright reasons. So what exactly do you want a link to?

There are many papers about the image formation, properties, 3D analysis , experiments on mark physics reproduction . Antonnaci, fanti a couple of places to start. There are many hundreds of man years research on it. I cannot give a link.

I have a dozen books on Eucharistic miracles too.
Easiest source of reports on tixtla is castarnons book.
it hasn’t got it all , but a reasonable first selection. “ Cronico de um milagro eucharistico” The book is in Spanish. No surprise there it happened in Mexico. Some reports English. Many other reports and videos out there.

I really was here to see what other views there are, as I assumed were all of you. If it was faked, what’s a process for it? Beats me - and the scientists who studied it. . How do white cells survive in vitro? I also ask if others even aware of the evidence.

Since you are all evolutionists, I had hoped by now somebody could point at a postulated structure of an intermediate cell to the minimum we know. Still not seemingly, still a void.

But really, I am through.
I don’t like the tone of discussion.
It is just an echo chamber for atheists to agree with each other, and ridicule theists.

Any attempt at pointing at evidence that doesn’t agree is met with ridicule. The problem is the ridicule is before any of you look, not after. So pointless. And unscientific.

Tixtla. Find out about it. If it was faked: how?
lab reports conclude blood was forced out of the bread not in!

Uh, if you were actually interested in arguing your point, you would provide links to this information if it existed.
In fact you claim a lot of things, but you provide no links or evidence for any of them, only saying that if we were serious we would find out for ourselves.

You don't really want to discuss science, you are looking for an echo chamber with people who will accept your assertions.

Sorry this isn't it, fare thee well.

 

[Estrid]

Mike, there are plenty of Catholic universities out there, before you accuse others of being atheistic to your beliefs, your bloody crackers and the physics of spontaneous high intensity light sources that leave only divine evidence. Science, Catholic or Christian or otherwise does not deal with anecdotal anomalies such as the belief that a particular piece of cloth and only that one is evidence that RC dating is way out of wack and what really caused this is some never seen elsewhere nuclear phenomenon. furthermore as several have told you, dating the shroud is off topic for this board and if you wish to discuss that, take it to an appropriate forum.

There's a forum I ran across that would love
another sycophant for that particular woo woo.

 

[Estrid]

The last defence of a refusenik. No links.

The books are hundreds of pages long. I have at least 20 on shroud science alone. How many do you want? I pointed at meachams book on why the shroud dating was a fiasco, his paper written BEFORE it was tested! You haven’t looked at it, yet it disproves a clear statement you made.

Links to many papers are on shroud.com. But not entire books for copyright reasons. So what exactly do you want a link to?

There are many papers about the image formation, properties, 3D analysis , experiments on mark physics reproduction . Antonnaci, fanti a couple of places to start. There are many hundreds of man years research on it. I cannot give a link.

I have a dozen books on Eucharistic miracles too.
Easiest source of reports on tixtla is castarnons book.
it hasn’t got it all , but a reasonable first selection. “ Cronico de um milagro eucharistico” The book is in Spanish. No surprise there it happened in Mexico. Some reports English. Many other reports and videos out there.

I really was here to see what other views there are, as I assumed were all of you. If it was faked, what’s a process for it? Beats me - and the scientists who studied it. . How do white cells survive in vitro? I also ask if others even aware of the evidence.

Since you are all evolutionists, I had hoped by now somebody could point at a postulated structure of an intermediate cell to the minimum we know. Still not seemingly, still a void.

But really, I am through.
I don’t like the tone of discussion.
It is just an echo chamber for atheists to agree with each other, and ridicule theists.

Any attempt at pointing at evidence that doesn’t agree is met with ridicule. The problem is the ridicule is before any of you look, not after. So pointless. And unscientific.

Tixtla. Find out about it. If it was faked: how?
lab reports conclude blood was forced out of the bread not in!

Ridicule theists?
Never.
Crackpot pseudoscience / woo woo
gets what it deserves.

 

[Mountainmike]

There's a forum I ran across that would love
another sycophant for that particular woo woo.

There’s a forum I ran across where atheists are happy to discuss evidence and science. They read the evidence first, It’s certainly not this one - sadly it shut down.
forensic labs don’t do woo woo.

I guess I am just gullible. When a senior county pathologist who is also a published heart specialist writing many papers on the heart says about the tissue joined to a communion host “ this is heart myocardium, it is striated because of trauma much as would be found in a road crash victim. The white cells shouldn’t be there. They dissolve in hours post mortem / in vitro, so they show the sample was living” - when he says it I believe him.

Other pathologists independently came to the same conclusion about similar samples occuring in other countries.

Estrid knows better?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I said that for mischief, trying to bring the discussion back to science, instead of ad hominem.

A smiley would have been helpful - that's what they're for.

Nobody knows why, but evidence is that solar neutrinos lead to seasonal variations in radioactive decay, observed in such as silicon32 and chlorine36 Etc which are supposed to be constant. What do you think?

The consensus seems to be that it's probably experimental error. The reported variations are tiny (< 0.1%) and AFAIAA well-controlled replications have not duplicated those results.

Interesting which ever way the verdict goes. If that’s true, it could affect radio dating.

Even if it does happen, a seasonal ripple wouldn't be significant over millennia.

 

[Mountainmike]

A smiley would have been helpful - that's what they're for.

The consensus seems to be that it's probably experimental error. The reported variations are tiny (< 0.1%) and AFAIAA well-controlled replications have not duplicated those results.

Even if it does happen, a seasonal ripple wouldn't be significant over millennia.

Why is this airing again. We exhausted this?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why is this airing again. We exhausted this?

You asked me: "What do you think?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Mountainmike]

You asked me: "What do you think?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I did . But I think we have both asked and answered that earlier in this or another thread?

In summary I pointed at neutrinos as example mechanism . I didn’t restrict it to solar neutrinos so the periodicity and strength are therefore not a given. I actually think heavy radiation eg alpha, proton or neutron is a better candidate because the Mark intensity reduces with distance so free path matters.
It is speculation.
All is actually known is the mark is consistent with short burst body centric radiation , and has only been reproduced so far by uv laser , static discharge and proton flux. Work in progress. The Jury is out.

 

[Frank Robert]

I will go else where , where people are interested in talking science.

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth that tradition associates with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable of which is radiocarbon dating, in an attempt to determine the relic's authenticity. In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390 AD, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s and is much later than the burial of Jesus in 30 or 33 AD.[1] Aspects of the 1988 test continue to be debated.[2][3][4]

C-14 Debate
from the Shroud Newsgroup:
alt.turin-shroud
Roger Sparks and William Meacham​

Despite some technical concerns that have been raised about radiocarbon dating of the Shroud,[5][6] no radiocarbon-dating expert has asserted that the dating is unreliable.[7]

Dating the Turin Shroud—An Assessment
The author concludes that, although the procedures followed differed substantially from those recommended at a workshop organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the results are credible. Although of negligible scientific value, they represent a major public triumph for the AMS method of carbon dating. However, many doubts have been raised, both real and fanciful, concerning the validity of the results and these are discussed. It is suggested that steps should be taken to conserve the shroud and that permission should be given for its examination by experts in medieval art.​

Emphasis added
​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I did . But I think we have both asked and answered that earlier in this or another thread?

In summary I pointed at neutrinos as example mechanism . I didn’t restrict it to solar neutrinos so the periodicity and strength are therefore not a given. I actually think heavy radiation eg alpha, proton or neutron is a better candidate because the Mark intensity reduces with distance so free path matters.
It is speculation.

You asked me what I thought of, "evidence ... that solar neutrinos lead to seasonal variations in radioactive decay", so yes, you did explicitly restrict it to solar neutrinos, and that was what my reply referred to.

You may be confusing our discussion with others you've been having in parallel...