Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Haha, double no.

Nailed it

 

[Mountainmike]

I despair of this forum.
you really nailed it this time subduction.

You haven’t even READ the references you quote.

If you had read them before post them you would know you linked one of the current pro authenticity advocates explaining why it is REAL!!!

but any old nonsense goes with a priori faith based debunking hey? including linking the opposition because you couldn’t find any useful links!

As for the others, one is popular press not science that shows they haven’t even studied the existing literature or they would know they are posting historical factually errors. By all means question findings, but do it with facts instead.
It’s as useful as the one that said da Vinci did it! Years before he was born!

The other so called “anomaly” by “ paranormal “ debunkers was explained in detail by at least two actual forensic pathologists, it’s done and dusted, They should read before research or write, and so not waste their time.

finally, one thing all serious scientists agree on ( other than cuckoos) including those who don’t think it is real is the shroud is not a painting. The blood is real and the mark isn’t paint. It’s a thin layer dehydration/ oxidation,
So quoting a piece of hearsay, not science, that says someone knew who painted it, isn’t very compelling when it isn’t painted, Not least because records show the real D’arcis consecrated the church a few years later: how so if he was opposed to the contents?

but quoting things that oppose your case because you didn’t read them, is weak by even your standards.

subduction. I have studied the shroud for decades. I have every well know book, I’ve watched all the videos and read most of the papers.
I know about the shroud… and why regardless of authenticity the dating must be false.

that’s the last post of yours I respond to.
Posting a supporting paper purporting it opposes it, means you either don’t read or You don’t care.

You have not provided any proper sources that support that claim. You keep forgetting that Rodgers lost all credibility since his samples were not authorized. You keep ducking the question of when Rodgers and others lied. You cannot take unauthorized samples and expect them to be taken seriously.



You should work on your spelling skills if you want to be taken seriously. Just two upper case letters would help your cause:

McCrone.

Now McCrone was the acknowledged expert in the field that we are talking about so articles by amateurs in that area hardly count as a refutation. You would need to demonstrate that those article were accepted by others, and that does not seem to be the case. Most (except for a few religious extremists) seem to accept McCrone. All you have are claims about repairs etc. that you have not been able to support. Meanwhile let's look at some of the gross problems with the shroud.

Number one is that the body geometry is often definitely wrong. Besides the fact that there was no history of the shroud prior to the 14th century. That it was accurately carbon dated to that period. That he cloth is wrong and that it does not even match the description of wrappings written in the Gospel of John it also had these problems:

"Additionally, the proportions of the figure on the shroud are anatomically incorrect, but they closely match the proportions of figures in Gothic art of the fourteenth-century. The bloodstains on the shroud are not consistent with how blood flows naturally, which suggests the stains have been painted on. Finally, the fabric of the shroud was made using a complex weave that was common in the Late Middle Ages for high-quality textiles but was not used for burial shrouds in the time of Jesus."

And forensic science refutes the shroud as well:

Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest

"They found that if one examined all the bloodstains on the shroud together, "you realize these cannot be real bloodstains from a person who was crucified and then put into a grave, but actually handmade by the artist that created the shroud,"study lead author Matteo Borrini, a forensic anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University in England, told Live Science.

For instance, two short rivulets of the blood on the back of the left hand of the shroud are only consistent with a person standing with their arms held at a 45-degree angle. In contrast, the forearm bloodstains found on the shroud match a person standing with their arms held nearly vertically. A person couldn't be in these two positions at once."

In other words the blood stains refute the shroud because though they may match blood real blood stains of a real person, they do not reflect the blood stains of a person in a single position. They should all reflect the same body position, but they do not.



The scientists did find that the bloodstains on the front of the chest did match those from a spear wound. However, the stains on the lower back — which supposedly came from the spear wound while the body was positioned on its back — were completely unrealistic, they said.

"If you look at the bloodstains as a whole, just as you would when working at a crime scene, you realize they contradict each other," Borrini said. "That points to the artificial origin of these stains."



The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten

And there is of course this article:

Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)

"Forensic analysis of possible bloodstains suggest marks could only have been made by someone adopting different poses, not dead Messiah lying still in tomb before the resurrection. ....

The Turin Shroud is a fake.

That is the verdict of Catholic Bishop Pierre d’Arcis who has written to tell the Pope it was “a clever sleight of hand” by someone “falsely declaring this was the actual shroud in which Jesus was enfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them”.

Admittedly, since Bishop d’Arcis was writing in 1390, to Pope Clement VII rather than Pope Francis, this is not exactly new news."

Meanwhile you will not even discuss why you think that the dating of the shroud has been refuted except to refer to your poor sources that clamed to do so. The problem is that they could did not have proper sources that would support this.

If you really really really believe that the shroud is real then you should be advocating that it be dated again with C14. I would have no problem with that. The technology has improved quite a bit over thirty years and it could be dated with even smaller samples today. But then when it inevitably tested to the 14th century again we would only have more science denial come out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I despair of this forum.
you really nailed it this time subduction.

You haven’t even READ the references you quote.

If you had read them before post them you would know you linked one of the current pro authenticity advocates explaining why it is REAL!!!

but any old nonsense goes with a priori faith based debunking hey? including linking the opposition because you couldn’t find any useful links!

Which post do you think supports you? I am betting that you did not understand it.

As for the others, one is popular press not science that shows they haven’t even studied the existing literature or they would know they are posting historical factually errors. By all means question findings, but do it with facts instead.
It’s as useful as the one that said da Vinci did it! Years before he was born!

So what if someone said that da Vinci did it? He was wrong. We still know it was a fake. One of bishops that first investigated found that it was used a for a faith healing scam. By the way, none of your sources qualify as "scientific" either. We both have been using popular press.

The other so called “anomaly” by “ paranormal “ debunkers was explained in detail by at least two actual forensic pathologists, it’s done and dusted, They should read before research or write, and so not waste their time.

Sorry mate, all of your claims have been refuted. You know it. I know it. The whole world knows it. You won't even discuss the details of how you think that the C14 tests fail. You have to pretend that there was a magic reweaving technique that no one spotted.

finally, one thing all serious scientists agree on ( other than cuckoos) including those who don’t think it is real is the shroud is not a painting. The blood is real and the mark isn’t paint. It’s a thin layer dehydration/ oxidation,
So quoting a piece of hearsay, not science, that says someone knew who painted it, isn’t very compelling when it isn’t painted, Not least because records show the real D’arcis consecrated the church a few years later: how so if he was opposed to the contents?

but quoting things that oppose your case because you didn’t read them, is weak by even your standards.

subduction. I have studied the shroud for decades. I have every well know book, I’ve watched all the videos and read most of the papers.
I know about the shroud… and why regardless of authenticity the dating must be false.

that’s the last post of yours I respond to.
Posting a supporting paper purporting it opposes it, means you either don’t read or You don’t care.

No, you have merely looked for confirmation bias for all of these years. When it comes to discussing the science you still refuse to do so. And you are also wrong about "blood" on the shroud. Only the fake remaining "scientists" working outside their area of expertise at STURP believe as you do. Very very few real scientists give them any credibility at all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry mate, all of your claims have been refuted. You know it. I know it. The whole world knows it. You won't even discuss the details of how you think that the C14 tests fail. You have to pretend that there was a magic reweaving technique that no one spotted.

He claimed to be a scientist, but he believes.

 

[stevevw]

Haha, double no.

I made several claims which one does the "double no" apply or does it apply to everything I said.

 

[Mountainmike]

He claimed to be a scientist, but he believes.

He believes the science of the shroud& so would you if you looked it up, and kept objectivity, Which is why he believes the dating was screwed up.

It doesn’t fit anything else, and the outlier has been explained by chemical characterisation of the sample . It ain’t the same as the shroud
But a priori sceptics don’t care what the science says. Cus it has to be fake right?

The key chemists vouch that the shroud is real blood, the mark is dehydration, and the RC sample was an outlier are 2 jews - Adler, Heller & atheist Rogers…. So that’s got to be Christian confirmation bias. Not.

Minerals and pollens show is from round Jerusalem.
There is no mark under the blood, so blood was not added later.
There is no vanillin left in the linen, so it is ancient and forensically matches blood marks on the much older sudarium, with pre and post mortem pathology that was invisible and not understood to mediaeval or earlier forgers. They didn’t have uv.

Then the tricky bit: the only way the mark has been reproduced is short period body centric radiation. No other hypothesis has even come close. It is categorically not paint or artwork. For one thing it is only microns thick on the top fibres.

It is fascinating. So Use that scientist brain of yours.
But google “shroud” not “ shroud fraud”
or you pick up the wishful thinking & creative nonsense subduction found.

you also believe.. just in different things. Although we also have a common area.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He believes the science of the shroud& so would you if you looked it up, and kept objectivity, Which is why he believes the dating was screwed up.

It doesn’t fit anything else, and the outlier has been explained by chemical characterisation of the sample . It ain’t the same as the shroud
But a priori sceptics don’t care what the science says. Cus it has to be fake right?

The key chemists vouch that the shroud is real blood, the mark is dehydration, and the RC sample was an outlier are 2 jews - Adler, Heller & atheist Rogers…. So that’s got to be Christian confirmation bias. Not.

Minerals and pollens show is from round Jerusalem.
There is no mark under the blood, so blood was not added later.
There is no vanillin left in the linen, so it is ancient and forensically matches blood marks on the much older sudarium, with pre and post mortem pathology that was invisible and not understood to mediaeval or earlier forgers. They didn’t have uv.

Then the tricky bit: the only way the mark has been reproduced is short period body centric radiation. No other hypothesis has even come close. It is categorically not paint or artwork. For one thing it is only microns thick on the top fibres.

It is fascinating. So Use that scientist brain of yours.
But google “shroud” not “ shroud fraud”
or you pick up the wishful thinking & creative nonsense subduction found.

you also believe.. just in different things. Although we also have a common area.

What makes you think that Rogers was an atheist? I see no articles making that claim. And you conveniently ignore the fact that he is a self admitted liar. How can he be trusted when he lied about his work?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

you also believe.. just in different things. Although we also have a common area.

I accept the scientific results published in peer-reviewed journals that have consensus by experts in the relevant fields as the best current explanation or understanding we have of the phenomena in question. IOW, I give such results higher levels of credence than other results; I give less rigorous, or unpublished, or un-peer-reviewed results correspondingly less credence. I don't 'believe' any of them to be 'true', but I do think some are beyond reasonable doubt.

The simplified summary I gave for a Bayesian approach to credences for telepathy should have made that clear.

 

[Mountainmike]

You will be glad to know that most of the shroud science is in such journals. It’s easier testing a “ thing” . Adler, heller and Rogers , knock mcrones pseudoscience and indeed the lack of representative RC date out of the park. Which demonstrates another point. Just because it’s in peer reviewed journals doesn’t mean it is right, or stands the test of time. Indeed the performance of reviewers generally has in the past been tested and found wanting or so I read.

I’m extremely angry at the shroud daters , not just because of bad process ignoring all agreed protocols, but because as their log books show they hindsight fiddled the numbers for presentation. Not dramatically, but enough to misrepresent them as passing consistency tests when in reality they didn’t. That should be a sacking offence , but by hiding it for three decades they retired before being outed. They also - as peers selected for review- refused to allow publication of Marino’s work which clearly contested theirs and led to the science which refuted the dating. No doubt because the peers ( and their laboratories) credibility would be shot if they did allow it. So much for objective reviews.

I’m also annoyed at the popular press which will publish any old fantasy eg “ da Vinci did it” as debunking the shroud, but you could hear a pin drop when the serious science like Adler authenticated it as the shroud of a crucified man.

on “ Bayesian “ I spent some time looking for needles in haystacks in data. For example attempting to track submarines from weak signals drowned out by noise in super resolving acoustic phased arrays. It’s when you realise there is a serious problem in looking at long tail. Which isn’t necessarily a common distribution, and you get into philosophical entropy assessments to attempt to work out when additional terms are modelling information or noise. Also Bayesian classifiers in the early days of neural networks / expert systems. LQG controllers etc. I saw the problems.

But moving on. You have identified the next logical debate.
Whether this thread or another.

You said “ he says he’s a scientist BUT he believes”
It’s a fascinating discussion as to why you think the two contradict.

The ground rules would be, you cannot attribute what others believe to me which is a straw man. Just because someone else identifying as a Christian says it, doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with it.
You can challenge me on what I believe , deduced from what I do say or have said, which presumably led to your comment.

I accept the scientific results published in peer-reviewed journals that have consensus by experts in the relevant fields as the best current explanation or understanding we have of the phenomena in question. IOW, I give such results higher levels of credence than other results; I give less rigorous, or unpublished, or un-peer-reviewed results correspondingly less credence. I don't 'believe' any of them to be 'true', but I do think some are beyond reasonable doubt.

The simplified summary I gave for a Bayesian approach to credences for telepathy should have made that clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You will be glad to know that most of the shroud science is in such journals. It’s easier testing a “ thing” . Adler, heller and Rogers , knock mcrones pseudoscience and indeed the lack of representative RC date out of the park. Which demonstrates another point. Just because it’s in peer reviewed journals doesn’t mean it is right, or stands the test of time. Indeed the performance of reviewers generally has in the past been tested and found wanting or so I read.

I’m extremely angry at the shroud daters , not just because of bad process ignoring all agreed protocols, but because as their log books show they hindsight fiddled the numbers for presentation. Not dramatically, but enough to misrepresent them as passing consistency tests when in reality they didn’t. That should be a sacking offence , but by hiding it for three decades they retired before being outed. They also - as peers selected for review- refused to allow publication of Marino’s work which clearly contested theirs and led to the science which refuted the dating. No doubt because the peers ( and their laboratories) credibility would be shot if they did allow it. So much for objective reviews.

I’m also annoyed at the popular press which will publish any old fantasy eg “ da Vinci did it” as debunking the shroud, but you could hear a pin drop when the serious science like Adler authenticated it as the shroud of a crucified man.

on “ Bayesian “ I spent some time looking for needles in haystacks in data. For example attempting to track submarines from weak signals drowned out by noise in super resolving acoustic phased arrays. It’s when you realise there is a serious problem in looking at long tail. Which isn’t necessarily a common distribution, and you get into philosophical entropy assessments to attempt to work out when additional terms are modelling information or noise. Also Bayesian classifiers in the early days of neural networks / expert systems. LQG controllers etc. I saw the problems.

But moving on. You have identified the next logical debate.
Whether this thread or another.

You said “ he says he’s a scientist BUT he believes”
It’s a fascinating discussion as to why you think the two contradict.

The ground rules would be, you cannot attribute what others believe to me which is a straw man. Just because someone else identifying as a Christian says it, doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with it.
You can challenge me on what I believe , deduced from what I do say or have said, which presumably led to your comment.

I see that you are still repeating false claims and you still have not dealt with the fact that Rodgers is a self admitted liar. Is that how you "win" debates in your mind?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You said “ he says he’s a scientist BUT he believes”
It’s a fascinating discussion as to why you think the two contradict.

My point is that a good scientist understands that scientific results and even well-tested, widely accepted scientific theories are provisional, so believing that they are 'true' is not a scientific attitude - and can lead to an unwarranted reluctance to revise those beliefs in the face of new evidence.

Naturally, I'm aware that, being human, even good scientists are predisposed to such beliefs, but equally, good scientists are aware of this and try to avoid or mitigate it.

The ground rules would be, you cannot attribute what others believe to me which is a straw man. Just because someone else identifying as a Christian says it, doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with it.

You can challenge me on what I believe , deduced from what I do say or have said, which presumably led to your comment.

Not sure what you're trying to say there. I don't recall attributing to you what others believe - please quote the post where you think I did that. But that would be a false attribution or a misrepresentation, not a straw man.

I have challenged you on what you have said you believe about the scientific issues we've covered here.

 

[Mountainmike]

So how about it frumious.

Let’s debate your statement:
“ he says he’s a scientist BUT he believes “
as if they contradicted. Where is the contradiction.
Demonstrate it.

But you are limited to things I say or have said :
no straw men of views other Christians May hold.

UPDATE
sorry , our posts crossed in the wire.

give an example of what you claim contradicts.

I accept the scientific results published in peer-reviewed journals that have consensus by experts in the relevant fields as the best current explanation or understanding we have of the phenomena in question. IOW, I give such results higher levels of credence than other results; I give less rigorous, or unpublished, or un-peer-reviewed results correspondingly less credence. I don't 'believe' any of them to be 'true', but I do think some are beyond reasonable doubt.

The simplified summary I gave for a Bayesian approach to credences for telepathy should have made that clear.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

give an example of what you claim contradicts.

I don't know what you mean - link the post where I claim a contradiction.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't know what you mean - link the post where I claim a contradiction.

you said this
“He claimed to be a scientist, but he believes.”

I took it in literal English. Semantics of words.
If you think the two parts can or do complement you would say
“ and he believes”
If you considered the first caused the second you would say “ so he believes”

“ But he believes “ is a contrast or contradiction that qualifies or casts doubt on the first assertion. That’s what the words mean.

I’m not trying to pick nits

If you really think the “ but he believes” serves to question the “ claims to be scientist” it would make an interesting discussion, because in my view it is a false dichotomy, If not, it’s an odd form of words to use.
It’s Up to you. We might understand each other better.

I didn’t claim you put words in my mouth, but by way of example it would be a straw man to ask me to defend eg an earth argued to be 8000 years old or whatever, because I don’t believe that even if some literal creationists who call them selves Christians do believe it. I can only defend what I believe. You would be surprised how often that appears in a science Vs Christianity discussion.

( now being mischevious) It is fascinating that Christianity believed in a Big Bang before scientists did! We are ahead of the game.
Dear old fred hoyle was not amused!

 

[Kyrani]

Information is a conceptual abstraction, like energy. Like energy, it only exists as a property (or properties) of some substrate, e.g. 'stuff'. In essence, the information capacity of a system is the number of ways its components can be arranged, and every arrangement is a unique instance of information.

Energy.. a conceptual abstraction??? What?
I was taught at university that energy and mass are .the same physical entity. And these entities are interchangeable, i.e., they can be changed into each other. It is called a conversion.

Have you heard of a guy called Einstein? He came up with the formula.

The formula is E = mc2. The energy of a body (kinetic energy) is equal to the rest mass of a body times the speed of light squared. Nothing conceptual nor abstraction here.

Even before Einstein the mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities, physical entities.

Einstein, in his Theory of Special Relativity showed that a body at rest, with mass m has mc2 amount of “rest energy”. This is potentially available and can be converted to some other form of energy.

Furthermore the mass-energy relationship says that, if energy is released from the body (through conversion), then the mass of the body will have decreased.

Atomic and hydrogen bombs accommodate energy released to cause explosions. The energy is so great as to liquify even rock.

I am trying to find a good video for you for the fundamental particles. Then I will explain what I mean by information at the source.

 

[Ophiolite]

The formula is E = mc2. The energy of a body (kinetic energy) is equal to the rest mass of a body times the speed of light squared. Nothing conceptual nor abstraction here.

That is an interesting way to dismiss one of the most important concepts in the science of the 20th century. Definitely conceptual.

Abstraction? Well, if we accept the duality of matter and energy, then characterising one expression of it as matter, another as energy is arguably a convenient fiction, an abstraction. But I think @FrumiousBandersnatch likely had something else in mind.

 

[Mountainmike]

The entire physical model is a conceptual abstraction.
Don’t patronise frumious.
He is better acquainted with the physics model than most other posters on here.

Energy.. a conceptual abstraction??? What?
I was taught at university that energy and mass are .the same physical entity. And these entities are interchangeable, i.e., they can be changed into each other. It is called a conversion.

Have you heard of a guy called Einstein? He came up with the formula.

The formula is E = mc2. The energy of a body (kinetic energy) is equal to the rest mass of a body times the speed of light squared. Nothing conceptual nor abstraction here.

Even before Einstein the mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities, physical entities.

Einstein, in his Theory of Special Relativity showed that a body at rest, with mass m has mc2 amount of “rest energy”. This is potentially available and can be converted to some other form of energy.

Furthermore the mass-energy relationship says that, if energy is released from the body (through conversion), then the mass of the body will have decreased.

Atomic and hydrogen bombs accommodate energy released to cause explosions. The energy is so great as to liquify even rock.

I am trying to find a good video for you for the fundamental particles. Then I will explain what I mean by information at the source.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

you said this
“He claimed to be a scientist, but he believes.”

I took it in literal English. Semantics of words.
If you think the two parts can or do complement you would say
“ and he believes”
If you considered the first caused the second you would say “ so he believes”

Oh, I see... Well, I already explained that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Energy.. a conceptual abstraction??? What?
I was taught at university that energy and mass are .the same physical entity. And these entities are interchangeable, i.e., they can be changed into each other. It is called a conversion.

Have you heard of a guy called Einstein? He came up with the formula.

The formula is E = mc2. The energy of a body (kinetic energy) is equal to the rest mass of a body times the speed of light squared. Nothing conceptual nor abstraction here.

Even before Einstein the mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities, physical entities.

Einstein, in his Theory of Special Relativity showed that a body at rest, with mass m has mc2 amount of “rest energy”. This is potentially available and can be converted to some other form of energy.

Furthermore the mass-energy relationship says that, if energy is released from the body (through conversion), then the mass of the body will have decreased.

Atomic and hydrogen bombs accommodate energy released to cause explosions. The energy is so great as to liquify even rock.

I am trying to find a good video for you for the fundamental particles. Then I will explain what I mean by information at the source.

I went through all this at length quite recently, so forgive me if I abbreviate it. E = mc² is an equivalence relation, not an identity relation. Energy is a conserved quantity, an indirectly observed property of things by virtue of their context, construction, etc. It doesn't have independent existence but represents a kind of equivalence; fundamentally, it's mostly the excitations of quantum fields. I likened it to financial value, an (ideally conserved, but not in practice) indirectly observed property that can come in many interconvertible forms, but has no independent existence.

Information is similar, it concerns the various ways a system can be configured, hence its relation to entropy.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh, I see... Well, I already explained that

…

My point is that a good scientist understands that scientific results and even well-tested, widely accepted scientific theories are provisional, so believing that they are 'true' is not a scientific attitude - and can lead to an unwarranted reluctance to revise those beliefs in the face of new evidence.

.

I agree with you. But here’s the thing.

I am the one that has consistently said the model is just an abstract, it is not the underlying reality it models, so for me it is neither true nor false, it just models better or worse.

So for me there is no “ truth” in the model , so conflict between science and Christianity.

So I’m not the one supposing science ( or rather the model) is “ true”
So in saying “he’s a scientist but he believes” ..is misleading regarding my thoughts about science.

On wider issues, I think there are factors that hurt science and academia
1/ the measurement of academia by number not quality of papers published encourages weak publication, leading to the filing cabinet effect.

2/ the lack of funding available for repeats, and the lack of willingness of journals to publish them. Take sheldrakes Nolan sisters telepathy experiment. The only “ repeat” to look at that effect changed the process and didn’t have a subset that directly matched sheldrake.
Was it the differences. We will never know. That was hurt by the repeat rules. I often see the comment of sceptics “ ill believe it if I see it repeated in a peer reviewed journal” is a self defeating demand.

much science could do with repeats!

3/ a virtual taboo against some types of subject. Sheldrake has never managed to attract funding for his work. Tesoriero repeatedly faced it looking for labs to validate Eucharistic miracle samples, and some academics like soubaniec were almost sacked and silenced for getting involved and daring to report what she found.

The reason they went to commercial forensic labs is the refusal of many universities to deal, and the fact forensic labs will deal without back story. They accept a commission to investigate an unknown sample ( assumed to be part of a legal criminal process)

I’ve also noted a reluctance to read books as if they are a poor relation to papers. I can only comment it was a book by Darwin that set cats amongst pigeons!