AiG: "Evolution not a theory" and "Four power questions"

[Mugnuts]

Greetings,

I know the science behind the climate change that produced a drought as a matter of fact this is why the article I posted talks about a reduction of the population.I'm not going to cast pearls before swine because you would deny it has anything to do with Noah's flood,but I've been trying to keep up with the science behind it for awhile.If you don't believe me? Then I will not post evidence you're just going to reject and explain away just like you always do when I post evidence.I post evidence when it is appropriate to do it.I've just skimmed the surface of evidence I have or know about.

Again, you prove that you're unable to read.

Where does it say that there was a reduction in the population?

You just don't understand the biblical basis for the gap theory.I gave a brief explanation,it was not in detail.My point was that when God restored the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:3-31 and created Adam on the 6 th day it was about 10,000 years ago and this lines up with what the article I posted lines up with.

Civilisation has existed for longer than that.

Pottery has been around for at least 30,000 years.

There was no "gap" or "global flood".

Your continuous grasping at straws to make your claims true is pointless.



Kindest regards,

James

Stop talking to me like I'm a young earth creationist.I'm not I'm a old earth creationist,there was a former world with hominids in it that were not agriculture type people like when Adam was created.You cannot read.Re-read the article I posted and it shows there was a reduction in the population,it dates to Noah's flood also.Anybody who reads it will know you are denying what the article says,there was a bottle neck a reduction in the population,even if they think it had nothing to do with Noah's flood.I can't believe you deny it even other posters acknowledged the bottle neck that you are denying.

Who cannot read now?! I think you might want to...I don't know...actually read what Dragan said and correct yourself. ( :facepalm: like that's going to happen)

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have explained over and over how a former world existed with hominids,dinosaurs

Shit, if you said it it must be true.

New mystery hominids discovered shekes up the theory of evolution.

How?

Notice they use the term "Lord of the rings"type world

What it is showing is there was a lot more types of hominids that lived in the former world than previously thought by science.

By "former" you mean "the past", there is no former, it is the same fucking world. What? You thought you were the only type of hominid in the history of the world? Does this confuse?
How the fuck does this go against evolution?

I'm not going to get into evidence for a global flood here and I don't know why you say I don't have evidence for one

Because you don't have any.

,but my only point was to show that secular science detects a reduction in the population that dates to Noah's flood,that was the only point I was making.

Let's say for the sake of argument that that is true. What have you achieve with that? Have you come any closer to establishing a global flood?
No... So what was the point again?

That the article I posted makes sense from a gap theory point of view.

No it doesn't. But lets say that it did, does it not make sense as well without the gap theory?

,but don't think I don't have a scientific explanation for a global flood

You don't.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

That doesn't address what I said.

You claim the article says that there was a reduction in the population.

Copy and paste where the article says that there was a reduction in the population.

As I keep telling you - it doesn't say that at all.

Kindest regards,

James

I explained also that I know about the science behind the climate change that produced a drought that produced dust in the ice sheets,in the oceans that wiped out civilizations and this article I posted is based on that science,you must understand that if you understand Noah's flood the effects of it lasted for thousands of years,this is reflected in the dates of the article from 8000 years ago to 4000 years ago.

I already gave you a link earlier about a civilization wiped out and that talked about the dust.This also includes how man was effected and spread out after the flood which I think the link you gave reffered to how they moved to Europe I think it was,but this all stems from the climate change that effected man that dates to Noah's flood.

Again, none of which answers my point.

Twice I've asked you to copy/paste where the article says what you claim - that there was a reduction in the population.

Twice you've avoided doing so.

Will the cock crow three times?

And your nonsense about what the two articles say having anything to do with the end of a "former world" and/or "the flood" shows that you have no idea about the science behind the articles or what it implies.

The articles indicate that climate change, due to a drought in the Northern hemisphere, caused migrations from affected areas.

None of this had anything to do with a "global flood".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Chicken grows face of dinosaur

It should be noted that the genes for dinosaur traits already exist in birds as the latter are descended from dinosaurs - this is not a case of scientists inserting dinosaur genes into a chicken's genome.

[Just for creationists' attention lest that argument is made.]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,

Chicken grows face of dinosaur

It should be noted that the genes for dinosaur traits already exist in birds as the latter are descended from dinosaurs - this is not a case of scientists inserting dinosaur genes into a chicken's genome.

[Just for creationists' attention lest that argument is made.]

Kindest regards,

James

I saw this too.You are tricked easily because all this proves is intelligent design.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I saw this too.You are tricked easily because all this proves is intelligent design.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Chicken grows face of dinosaur

It should be noted that the genes for dinosaur traits already exist in birds as the latter are descended from dinosaurs - this is not a case of scientists inserting dinosaur genes into a chicken's genome.

[Just for creationists' attention lest that argument is made.]

Kindest regards,

James

I saw this too.You are tricked easily because all this proves is intelligent design.

... And the cock crowed for a third time.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

"Dragan Glas"]Greetings,

Greetings,

Chicken grows face of dinosaur

It should be noted that the genes for dinosaur traits already exist in birds as the latter are descended from dinosaurs - this is not a case of scientists inserting dinosaur genes into a chicken's genome.

[Just for creationists' attention lest that argument is made.]

Kindest regards,

James

I saw this too.You are tricked easily because all this proves is intelligent design.

... And the cock crowed for a third time.

Kindest regards,

James

[/quote]

I don't see why you are stuck on this point as even if it doesn't it in Noway hurts anything I've said because I know about the science behind the drought.Here is the link again and it dates to Noah's flood like this article does.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/4/379.abstract

Here is this too
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/25/5/758.abstract

Here is evidence for dust on the sea floor because of the drought and it all dates to Noah's flood and this link you are reffering to that you keep saying does not mention a drop in the population is based on this science,like I've said over and over.There are more links I could post but I've given enough to back up what I've said.Even if you think it has nothing to do with Noah's flood.
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

 

[abelcainsbrother]

We've got off topic.But remember I reject evolution for specific reasons that I have explained in this thread.I do not reject it because of my faith in God and the bible like some creationists.I have very good scientific reasons why I reject the theory of evolution and now that I know the truth about the gap theory and the true history behind science and the gap theory and evolution? I do believe the gap theory better fits and explains the evidence in the earth a lot better than evolution does.

If you have a problem with why I reject evolution you are free to try to correct me,however do not misunder-estimate my knowledge about the evidence behind evolution,because I continue to look from time to time at the evidence used as evidence life evolves and I know it only proves what we already knew long before the theory of evolution and that is life reproduces and there are variations in reproduction such as dogs and that life can adapt to survive hostile environments.

We know this is true but want to see evidence that life evolves which none of the evidence shows.

Viruses are used as evidence life evolves as you know but all the evidence proves is that life can adapt,it does not show us life evolves because it remains a virus.

Finches,salamanders,frogs,fruit flies,etc are all used as evidence life evolves yet all it is proving is reproduction,not that life evolves.

So do not think that I haven't looked at the evidence,because I have and it is only showing reproduction or adaptation.It is not showing reproduction,adaptation,evolution,natural selection,micro-evolution and macroevolution which cannot be skimmed over and ignored if we are to accept the theory of evolution,there is no reason to assume or speculate or have faith life evolves,there is no reason to assume reproduction or adaptation are just baby steps to evolution.It is up to you to show it does,which has not been done.

I go by evidence and my mind is not necessarily made up,because I go where the evidence leads and if science ever truly demonstrated life evolves? I would accept it as there are already theistic evolutionists,but I cannot be one without evidence life evolves,the bible is what I put my faith in and I see no reason to have two faiths so evolution is out and the gap theory is in.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Abel, we all know that is bullshit.
You don't care what the evidence is (in fact you don't even understand what it is) we could literally show you anything and you would still believe what you believe. If we hypothetically took you on a time machine and we took you to the time and place of the alleged Jesus and show you that he was no where to be found, if we took you to the beginnings of life on earth and fast forward to present time so you can see the hole process developing in front of your eyes. You would still believe that evolution was a fabrication and that God created the earth and Jesus is your Lord and savior.

You cite examples of evolution and claiming it is no evolution, you link to articles that contradict what you say and yet you think you are right, and even claim that those articles support your view.
I have tried to exhaustion to explain to you what evolution actually is, and I tried to exhaustion to make you define your terms to show you that your objections are simply misguided. And all you do is to simply flat out refuse to define your terms and use those terms as an objection to a straw-man version of evolution.

You are not a reasonable person that would simply change your mind had you only be presented with enough evidence. You are a fundamentalist no different than the creationists you criticize. I might just as well be arguing with the rocks to make them walk for all the difference it makes.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

... And the cock crowed for a third time.

Kindest regards,

James

I don't see why you are stuck on this point as even if it doesn't it in Noway hurts anything I've said ...

The reason is simple.

You're claiming that it says something it patently does not and that you've failed three times to address my point shows that:

a) you are unable to actually take in what you are reading;
b) you're intellectually dishonest in that you appear pathologically unable to admit that it doesn't actually say what you claim.

You now attempt to slide-over all of this by claiming that "even if it doesn't it in Noway [sic] hurts anything I've said" - which shows just how removed from reality you are.

... because I know about the science behind the drought.Here is the link again and it dates to Noah's flood like this article does.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/4/379.abstract

Here is this too
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/25/5/758.abstract

Here is evidence for dust on the sea floor because of the drought and it all dates to Noah's flood and this link you are reffering to that you keep saying does not mention a drop in the population is based on this science,like I've said over and over.There are more links I could post but I've given enough to back up what I've said.Even if you think it has nothing to do with Noah's flood.
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

Firstly, "and it all dates to Noah's flood" is simply not the case because there was no flood!

Secondly, prove my claim wrong - that the article "does not mention a drop in the population" - by copying/pasting the relevant sentence(s).

As I keep asking you to do.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel, we all know that is bullshit.
You don't care what the evidence is (in fact you don't even understand what it is) we could literally show you anything and you would still believe what you believe. If we hypothetically took you on a time machine and we took you to the time and place of the alleged Jesus and show you that he was no where to be found, if we took you to the beginnings of life on earth and fast forward to present time so you can see the hole process developing in front of your eyes. You would still believe that evolution was a fabrication and that God created the earth and Jesus is your Lord and savior.

You cite examples of evolution and claiming it is no evolution, you link to articles that contradict what you say and yet you think you are right, and even claim that those articles support your view.
I have tried to exhaustion to explain to you what evolution actually is, and I tried to exhaustion to make you define your terms to show you that your objections are simply misguided. And all you do is to simply flat out refuse to define your terms and use those terms as an objection to a straw-man version of evolution.

You are not a reasonable person that would simply change your mind had you only be presented with enough evidence. You are a fundamentalist no different than the creationists you criticize. I might just as well be arguing with the rocks to make them walk for all the difference it makes.

If we went back in time you would see Jesus is a real person but it does not mean you would still accept him,it is no different to then or now,some people do and some people don't but you ignore the evidence I have given concerning the shroud of Turin,you refuse to actually look at the scientific evidence behind the shroud,and you are stuck believing critics using outdated arguments against it claiming it was made in the 12th century.

It is the opposite of what you accuse me of.I give evidence and you ignore it.You don't believe the shroud is the burial linen of Jesus and do not care what science has discovered and what it takes to produce an image like the image on the shroud.It proves it could not have been made in the 12th century because the technology did not exist.Even with this technology we have today,it still is as close as you can get to an image on the shroud we can produce.Nothing the critics have produced is anything like the image on the shroud.

Your mind could be changed if you really desired the truth and examined the evidence behind the shroud unless nothing will change your mind.They have done tests on the shroud and can show everywhere the shroud has been by the types of pollen on it,they know it is real blood that has DNA.So was it a 12th century art piece where they used real blood?I can't get into all of the evidence here but the information is out there.

I disagree whenever somebody has tried to show I'm wrong about evolution? I back up what I say and show them it only shows reproduction or adaptation,so now they try to use the evolution tree or DNA as evidence but it does'nt work because scientists are putting out evidence as evidence life evolves and yet it is only showing reproduction or adaptation,not evolution,the fact is that one must assume the rest based on reproduction or adaptation.

Also I'm agreeing with an atheist who just happens to be right about evolution.It makes no difference to me who is right because I go by evidence and even atheists can be right about things.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

="Dragan Glas"]Greetings,

Greetings,

... And the cock crowed for a third time.

Kindest regards,

James

I don't see why you are stuck on this point as even if it doesn't it in Noway hurts anything I've said ...

The reason is simple.

You're claiming that it says something it patently does not and that you've failed three times to address my point shows that:

a) you are unable to actually take in what you are reading;
b) you're intellectually dishonest in that you appear pathologically unable to admit that it doesn't actually say what you claim.

You now attempt to slide-over all of this by claiming that "even if it doesn't it in Noway [sic] hurts anything I've said" - which shows just how removed from reality you are.

... because I know about the science behind the drought.Here is the link again and it dates to Noah's flood like this article does.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/4/379.abstract

Here is this too
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/25/5/758.abstract

Here is evidence for dust on the sea floor because of the drought and it all dates to Noah's flood and this link you are reffering to that you keep saying does not mention a drop in the population is based on this science,like I've said over and over.There are more links I could post but I've given enough to back up what I've said.Even if you think it has nothing to do with Noah's flood.
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

Firstly, "and it all dates to Noah's flood" is simply not the case because there was no flood!

Secondly, prove my claim wrong - that the article "does not mention a drop in the population" - by copying/pasting the relevant sentence(s).

As I keep asking you to do.

Kindest regards,

James

[/quote]

My whole point has been that there was a drought that produced dust in the ice sheets,in the oceans,this drought dates to Noah's flood.You are hung up on one link I posted and refuse to acknowledge the science behind the drought all to try to say that link does not show a reduction of the population,ignoring my other points about the science behind the drought.You see the article you are hung up on has to do with the drought,you seem to disagree to say it shows no reduction in the population.

But I've given enough links to back me up about the drought that did reduce the population.
I'll wait until it matters to present the evidence and explanation for a flood,but here is not the place.You may deny it it if you want to but I have given enough evidence to back myself up about a world wide drought that produced dust.Even if you think that link you are hung up on,has nothing to do with it,I have still given evidence for the drought that I say that link is reffering to.This is all I'm required to do and I've done it. I realize you reject a flood but my whole point has been to show that a drought happened that dates to Noah's flood and I've done it.I have not got into evidence or an explanation for a flood.I have not went there.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If we went back in time you would see Jesus is a real person but it does not mean you would still accept him,it is no different to then or now,some people do and some people don't but you ignore the evidence I have given concerning the shroud of Turin,you refuse to actually look at the scientific evidence behind the shroud,and you are stuck believing critics using outdated arguments against it claiming it was made in the 12th century. It is the opposite of what you accuse me of.

This summarizes it all. You flat out accuse other people of not giving you any evidence when they do, you accuse us of not accepting evidence (when you in fact present no evidence) and then when it comes to your pet theory you accept it on some one's says so and you proudly flat out deny evidence that you are wrong.
There are 2 sides to the claim of the validity of the shroud. One which claims that it was the one shroud used on Jesus Christ burial based on.... say so, that is it, pure fucking say so. And the other that has analysed the shroud and dated it to a time period much later than the time of the alleged Jesus (never mind that even if it date to it there would no way to tell that it was Jesus's), they claim it is just not possible and here is why. There are many other pieces of evidence on the shroud, and all point to hoax.
But here is the thing, you a have something which not only doesn't have any evidence for it, it has evidence against it.
The shroud is fake, its a hoax. Deal with it!

So are all other religious artifacts. There are enough pieces of the authentic Jesus cross that would make enough wood to nail a small village, and holy nails to nail each one of them, and enough spears of destiny to ensure everybody gets lanced without the risk transmitting disease among-st them, and holy crown of thorns for each one so that you are able to complete the depiction the story of the Crucifixion with a village full of Jesus'es. There are more holy chalices than what you would require to provide the burning man festival enough beer receptacles for everybody.
There are more holy prepuce's of Jesus Christ to make enough dick to put the most hung man to shame.

"Holly relics" aren't holly to me, they do not mean to me the presence of the divine on earth. What they mean to me is how gullible fools humans can be. And that depresses me.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

If we went back in time you would see Jesus is a real person but it does not mean you would still accept him,it is no different to then or now,some people do and some people don't but you ignore the evidence I have given concerning the shroud of Turin,you refuse to actually look at the scientific evidence behind the shroud,and you are stuck believing critics using outdated arguments against it claiming it was made in the 12th century. It is the opposite of what you accuse me of.

This summarizes it all. You flat out accuse other people of not giving you any evidence when they do, you accuse us of not accepting evidence (when you in fact present no evidence) and then when it comes to your pet theory you accept it on some one's says so and you proudly flat out deny evidence that you are wrong.
There are 2 sides to the claim of the validity of the shroud. One which claims that it was the one shroud used on Jesus Christ burial based on.... say so, that is it, pure fucking say so. And the other that has analysed the shroud and dated it to a time period much later than the time of the alleged Jesus (never mind that even if it date to it there would no way to tell that it was Jesus's), they claim it is just not possible and here is why. There are many other pieces of evidence on the shroud, and all point to hoax.
But here is the thing, you a have something which not only doesn't have any evidence for it, it has evidence against it.
The shroud is fake, its a hoax. Deal with it!

So are all other religious artifacts. There are enough pieces of the authentic Jesus cross that would make enough wood to nail a small village, and holy nails to nail each one of them, and enough spears of destiny to ensure everybody gets lanced without the risk transmitting disease among-st them, and holy crown of thorns for each one so that you are able to complete the depiction the story of the Crucifixion with a village full of Jesus'es. There are more holy chalices than what you would require to provide the burning man festival enough beer receptacles for everybody.
There are more holy prepuce's of Jesus Christ to make enough dick to put the most hung man to shame.

"Holly relics" aren't holly to me, they do not mean to me the presence of the divine on earth. What they mean to me is how gullible fools humans can be. And that depresses me.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud_2.html


http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/03/sudarium-of-oviedo-and-shroud-of-turin.html

 

[Dragan Glas]

Dragan Glas said:

====================================
Greetings,

I don't see why you are stuck on this point as even if it doesn't it in Noway hurts anything I've said ...

The reason is simple.

You're claiming that it says something it patently does not and that you've failed three times to address my point shows that:

a) you are unable to actually take in what you are reading;
b) you're intellectually dishonest in that you appear pathologically unable to admit that it doesn't actually say what you claim.

You now attempt to slide-over all of this by claiming that "even if it doesn't it in Noway [sic] hurts anything I've said" - which shows just how removed from reality you are.

... because I know about the science behind the drought.Here is the link again and it dates to Noah's flood like this article does.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/4/379.abstract

Here is this too
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/25/5/758.abstract

Here is evidence for dust on the sea floor because of the drought and it all dates to Noah's flood and this link you are reffering to that you keep saying does not mention a drop in the population is based on this science,like I've said over and over.There are more links I could post but I've given enough to back up what I've said.Even if you think it has nothing to do with Noah's flood.
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

Firstly, "and it all dates to Noah's flood" is simply not the case because there was no flood!

Secondly, prove my claim wrong - that the article "does not mention a drop in the population" - by copying/pasting the relevant sentence(s).

As I keep asking you to do.

Kindest regards,

James

=====================

My whole point has been that there was a drought that produced dust in the ice sheets,in the oceans,this drought dates to Noah's flood.

The drought was in the Northern Hemisphere - there is no evidence of a world-wide drought.

There was no flood.

You are hung up on one link I posted and refuse to acknowledge the science behind the drought all to try to say that link does not show a reduction of the population,ignoring my other points about the science behind the drought.You see the article you are hung up on has to do with the drought,you seem to disagree to say it shows no reduction in the population.

But I've given enough links to back me up about the drought that did reduce the population.

You continue to claim that there was a reduction in the population and that the article supports your claim.

There wasn't and it doesn't.

Everyone here can read the article and see that it does not claim what you say it does nor does it support what you claim.

Your continuing to attempt to deny this just makes you look disingenuous at best.

I'll wait until it matters to present the evidence and explanation for a flood,but here is not the place.You may deny it it if you want to but I have given enough evidence to back myself up about a world wide drought that produced dust.Even if you think that link you are hung up on,has nothing to do with it,I have still given evidence for the drought that I say that link is reffering to.This is all I'm required to do and I've done it. I realize you reject a flood but my whole point has been to show that a drought happened that dates to Noah's flood and I've done it.I have not got into evidence or an explanation for a flood.I have not went there.

As I keep telling you, and indeed posted a linked study as evidence, the evidence only indicates a drought in the Northern hemisphere - not world-wide.

Nor has it anything to do with a world-wide flood.

The issue I have with your claims is solely to do with your claim that the article states/implies that there was a reduction in the population.

It doesn't - because there wasn't.

You can post links to articles - you can not claim that they say something they don't, nor can you claim that, based on said false claims, the article supports your false claim(s).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

========================

abelcainsbrother said:

If we went back in time you would see Jesus is a real person but it does not mean you would still accept him,it is no different to then or now,some people do and some people don't but you ignore the evidence I have given concerning the shroud of Turin,you refuse to actually look at the scientific evidence behind the shroud,and you are stuck believing critics using outdated arguments against it claiming it was made in the 12th century. It is the opposite of what you accuse me of.

========================

This summarizes it all. You flat out accuse other people of not giving you any evidence when they do, you accuse us of not accepting evidence (when you in fact present no evidence) and then when it comes to your pet theory you accept it on some one's says so and you proudly flat out deny evidence that you are wrong.
There are 2 sides to the claim of the validity of the shroud. One which claims that it was the one shroud used on Jesus Christ burial based on.... say so, that is it, pure fucking say so. And the other that has analysed the shroud and dated it to a time period much later than the time of the alleged Jesus (never mind that even if it date to it there would no way to tell that it was Jesus's), they claim it is just not possible and here is why. There are many other pieces of evidence on the shroud, and all point to hoax.
But here is the thing, you a have something which not only doesn't have any evidence for it, it has evidence against it.
The shroud is fake, its a hoax. Deal with it!

So are all other religious artifacts. There are enough pieces of the authentic Jesus cross that would make enough wood to nail a small village, and holy nails to nail each one of them, and enough spears of destiny to ensure everybody gets lanced without the risk transmitting disease among-st them, and holy crown of thorns for each one so that you are able to complete the depiction the story of the Crucifixion with a village full of Jesus'es. There are more holy chalices than what you would require to provide the burning man festival enough beer receptacles for everybody.
There are more holy prepuce's of Jesus Christ to make enough dick to put the most hung man to shame.

"Holly relics" aren't holly to me, they do not mean to me the presence of the divine on earth. What they mean to me is how gullible fools humans can be. And that depresses me.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud_2.html

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/03/sudarium-of-oviedo-and-shroud-of-turin.html

These articles do not prove what you're claiming: that it's the image of Jesus.

Radio-carbon dating of the Sudarium gives ~700AD - a few centuries after its alleged first mention. This has been explained as due to possible contamination from oil(s) thus skewing the dating.

The Turin Shroud's dating is possibly suspect as the pieces allowed to be taken appear to be different in weave than the main body of the Shroud, most likely due to repair - hence, the pieces that were dated are repairs dating to the 12[sup]th[/sup] century.

I am prepared to accept that both materials are from earlier times and that they are of a individual who was crucified - however, this does not mean they are images of "Jesus".

Although the blood has been identified as AB in both materials, no DNA analysis has been done that would identify the geographical location and/or the bloodline of the individual. By "bloodline" I mean Semitic, etc.

The unique manner in which the images came about appear to be linked to the "aromas and burial ointments" used.

The question remains as to a suitable energy source to cause the oils to transfer an image to the linens. Natural light and heat or some combination of the two are the only likely ones possible at the time - this is unlikely to be an attempt to intentionally generate an image as it would require that such "technology" was already known, thus leaving a multitude of linens with images of varying levels of development of said techniques.

There is no guarantee that it is the image of "Jesus" - it could be that a purely accidental particular combination of circumstances resulted in a "image" of a victim of crucifixion coming into existence.

This "supernatural" occurrence would be sufficient for it to become a "holy" relic - regardless of the actual identity of the crucified individual.

You cannot claim it to be the "image of Jesus".

Not least because of the lack of evidence external to the bible for such a individual.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Visaki]

There is one point I'd like to make about the Turin shroud. It is very interesting that an object that should be one of the most holy relics in the christian faith only came to be known in the 14th century. We have no reliable record of it's existence before that and the first known written reliable source for it, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis' memorandum from 1390, claimed it to be a forgery. So we basically have no idea where the shroud was for the first 1300 years of it's existence and why it isn't mentioned anywhere. For an item of such supposed huge importance it was suspiciously absent.

 

[WarK]

There is one point I'd like to make about the Turin shroud. It is very interesting that an object that should be one of the most holy relics in the christian faith only came to be known in the 14th century. We have no reliable record of it's existence before that and the first known written reliable source for it, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis' memorandum from 1390, claimed it to be a forgery. So we basically have no idea where the shroud was for the first 1300 years of it's existence and why it isn't mentioned anywhere. For an item of such supposed huge importance it was suspiciously absent.

A good point. In times where every other church claimed to have Jesus' foreskin one would think they'd be as loud about the shroud.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It is funny.You all think you are so smart but all I see on display is intellectual dishonesty for even when I give evidence it is ignored and explained away.But it does not matter because all I can do is present evidence and that is what I do,y'all can ignore it and show everybody just how intellectual dishonest a lot of atheists are.You will not be able to persuade people once they see you could careless about evidence that shows you are wrong and yet you ignore it.Talk about dogma? Dogma is on full display here and it is atheist dogma,ignore any and all evidence that points to God and an after life,just ignore it and live in make-believe.This is why I don't cast pearls before swine.

I know this none of you who rejected the evidence I've given will be able to stand before God on judgment day and say I did not know.I could never be like you who reject evidence.

I know this you cannot say my faith is blind faith because I have evidence behind me,because I put my faith in the truth,not makes believe and lies.