Well exactly, and who wouldnt be! That would be fantastic. For that matter, if someone proved there really had been a flood and so on, that would take some getting used to the implications... to say the least.. but who wouldnt be thrilled and excited by that news too?
I think we would need both direct and indirect "proof" (aka really really strong evidence). Both the resurrection of Christ (assuming he existed at all) and the flood would not only require immediate evidence that these things happen, it would require strong evidence that an enormous number of things commonly observed do NOT happen. Things like, you know, biology and geology and paleontology and stuff like that.
IMHO we have extra-ordinary evidence, proven by the fact modern science has no clue how that image was made. On the contrary, Bippy123 didn't have an opinion on the shroud until he looked at the evidence in an open-minded way. The atheists here might try and do the same. You seem to be projecting on the foregone conclusion/faith part. Want to address the scientific envidence Bippy presented rather than ignoring it and talking about the flood? How about starting with answering how that dirt and pollen from the Jerusalem area got on that 'Medieval forgery'?
I go back to my earlier point that this is not just about evidence. Many who saw the miracles first-hand rejected Christ. Question: If you saw the miracles, would you become a Christian?
Why not just answer about the flood? You question what sort of evidence and objectivity an atheist might bring to bear, this is a good way to see how you do in this regard. My guess is you do believe in the flood and the 6 day creation, things that have been so throughly been disproved (and nary a scrap of data anywhere on their side) that only a person determined to ignore what they dont like would accept their reality. So how is it? - - - Updated - - - Maybe they are not among the ones who agree that there was a miracle? Surely not everyone who went to see the miracle of the sun actually saw a miracle? But as for what it would take to make me a believer, something believable would be a great start.
What do you mean ONE study? From an earlier post by Bippy 123: "Notice that in all of taikoo's post above that he didn't post or cite one peer reviewed article and not only did he cite Walter mccrone's light microscope visual observation but he also gave it precedence over world renowned blood chemist Alan Adlers peer reviewed blood chemical tests which show conclusively that the red material on the shroud is blood. Then as you correctly pointed out, his sources are old. He uses old sources which aren't peer reviewed. The kicker here is that he also cited Joe Nickell's work. Maybe Taikoo could tell us the scientific credentials of Joe Nickell. I'll give Taikoo a clue. Joe Nickell has the same scientific credentials as I do. In other words he doesn't have a 2 year degree in any scientific field loooool. So to cap it off. Taikoo, instead of going throigh the more than 100 peer reviewed papers available on the shroud from shroud.com in which most favor authenticity, he instead chose to use 30 year old non peer reviewed opinions, from either unnamed source, people without even an associates degree in any scientific field or Wikipedia sources. This my friends is how atheists operate when they majority of evidences are against them. Instead of being honest they will resort to every trick in the book to try to distract people from the truth. Is this the vaunted scientific , rational and reasonable mind of atheists? Again this proves that atheism is more of an emotional worldview then a rational one." Sorry, but it seems as if your side is using only one, discredited source.
Gee, I can't imagine that anyone in Turin had ever even heard of Jerusalem, much less visited there. I'm not saying the shroud isn't old, I'm saying that if I were an artisan making a fake, using appropriate materials might occur to me. I don't think there is sufficient evidence, one way or another, to draw any conclusions about the shroud. There is indirect, circumstantial evidence pointing in different directions. I'm not drawing any conclusions, I'm pointing out that there are multiple experts (more informed than Bippy), and THEY disagree. I note their disagreement. Can you?
So do you feel that the current evidence is definitive, complete, and irrefutable? Seriously? You seem to imply there are two categories of experts here - those who don't rule out what you wish to believe, and those who find your desires unlikely. And the second group doesn't count. Sorry that some people are skeptical, and others are credulous and gullible. The evidence is currently ambiguous.
Why bother, if the means to detect said dirt, flowers and pollen from the Jerusalem area hadn't been invented yet? How would that impress Medieval people? That makes no sense. OK, you seem open-minded enough to not reject it out of hand. While I don't think the Shroud alone can *prove* the resurrection, IMHO it is strong evidence in its favor. I think if the evidence were presented to an unbiased jury, they would decide in its favor. This is all contrary to the constant atheist claim that there is NO evidence for Christianity.
A little simplistic there. Bippy123 has written earlier in this thread of men who set out to disprove the Shroud, and ended up believing it to be genuine, AFTER looking at the evidence, not because they were credulous and gullible.
There aren't actually "more than 100 peer reviewed papers" at that site. They aren't all scientific peer reviewed articles, anyway. The vast majority are papers from shroud believers that were presented at shroud conferences. The truly peer reviewed scientific papers appear to be neutral analyses of different aspects of the shroud. None of the scientific articles made any meaningful conclusions about the shroud's authenticity.
The medieval forgery theory is but one of many....but who is to say it was not created in Jerusalem if it was faked. You are asking others to disprove something unproven...rather poor debate tactic. Rather than expecting someone to prove your case for you, try offering proof of the thing you champion. As for the "Rio Grande" Valley thingy: "In the western interior of North America, the Middle Jurassic is characterized by a series of six marine incursions. These epicontinental seaways are referred to collectively as the Carmel and Sundance seas; the Carmel Sea is older and not as deep as the Sundance. In these epicontinental seaways, marine sandstones, mudstones, limestones, and shales were deposited—some with marine fossils...."
And others have looked at the same evidence and come to different tentative conclusions. People's opinions are not evidence. Truly sincere, unshakeable convictions are not evidence.
The "made in Jerusalem" proposal makes sense, since it would therefore be made of, and contain, things found in Jerusalem, including trace amounts of normal dust and pollen. Proof is unobtainable in the empirical world. But stronger, more consistent evidence based on studies not monitored and circumscribed by Believers would be a good start. But hey, this only makes sense if the earth is very old. Magic floods are so much easier to understand than plate movements, sedimentary formations, all those fake fossils...
You have no evidence that anyone saw any of those miracles. You have no evidence that any miracles ever happened. All you have is fables from the bible. Outside of those telling the tales, there is no written record of anything of the sort. And even those telling the tales are often in direct conflict. There is some evidence that each gospel writer built on the prior writings, but often came up with new stories or new versions. All you have is circular reasoning: you believe it because the bible says it, you believe the bible because it's god's word, and you know it's god's word because the bible says so. You have crawled into a hole and pulled the hole in after you. I don't question the sincerity of your faith, but the alleged basis of that faith is preposterous, absurd, and attested in the least reliable way ever devised - except to those raised to believe it. So I always make a very simple request. Set the bible aside, pretend it doesn't exist, and THEN provide your evidence.
I wish to state for the record, that as an Atheist I "KNOW" Christianity is real, exists, has been absolutely proven, and has physical manifestations I can touch and verify personally. What does this have to do with my disbelief in it's version of God, or the stories in the Bible(s)....let alone the Shroud of Turin.
I'm sure that just as there's evidence that Christianity exists, there's evidence that gods exist, as neural firing patterns in the brain. Those patterns are real. As always, the issue is whether those particular patterns have any external referents.
Joe Nickell, senior research fellow of the Amherst, N.Y.-based Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, says the Shroud of Turin is neither a matter for science nor faith, since it was known to be a fake from the time it appeared in the 14th century. Asked to list the reasons he believes the shroud is a fake, Nickell argues that its shape is wrong, according to both Gospel accounts and ancient Jewish burial practices. “Simply draping the cloth under and over the body is from the Middle Ages,” he said. He notes other problems with the shroud image, including the hair lying close to the head, “when it should be splayed out,” and the unnaturally elongated shape of the body “more like French Gothic art than real life.” Nickell also refuses to accept that any record of this particular shroud can be found before it showed up in Lirey, France, around 1350. Even then, he notes, two succeeding bishops from the area pronounced the shroud a fake, the second purportedly producing the artist who created it. “These are claims by bishops, not the village atheists,” noted Nickell. Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/science-shines-new-light-on-shroud-of-turins-age/#ixzz2onOYE4o8 All shroud discussions are moot...or for revenue.
This is an s man at best. There is no evidence for any god. As for your jury, you i think would change quick enough if claims of the supernatural were invoked by the prosecution to prove your guilt!
