Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Shroud's Second Image

  1. Dec 17, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/012/32.56.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 17, 2004 #2
    I find it hilarious that ChristianityToday would hold the view that: "The fact that their study was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is significant and 'a step in the right direction,'" when you can type "evolution" in the search box and find out how Intelligent Design is poised to replace evolution in the classroom.

    Anyway, I'm curious to read about this issue in the upcoming skeptical publications. The shroud is simply an issue that will not die.
    Could Fanti manage to do so?
     
  4. Dec 17, 2004 #3

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    You have to distinguish different kinds of Christians. The Shroud is a Catholic relic, and the Pope supports evolution.
     
  5. Dec 20, 2004 #4
    You're right, kind of. The Pope doesn't necessarily 'support' evolution; he has been quoted has saying it is more than a hypothesis, that it is in some way scientifically validated. The Pope feels that if evolution were true it wouldn't violate the basic beliefs of the catholic church; In my opinion, he probably doesn't care if it's true either way. I found an interesting article about this from google: Evolution and the Pope
    Note this quote at the bottom: "When a philosophically or theology unsound version of evolution is proposed, it should be challenged on those grounds. But when a view of evolution doesn't contradict sound philosophy or theology-when it is compatible with what John Paul II calls "the truth about man"-then its validity depends on the scientific evidence. Ultimately, the evidence will either corroborate or undermine the theory. Those who accept or reject such a theory should do so on scientific, rather than philosophical or theological, grounds."
    Now, I don't know exactly what that means but it does sound a little more reasonable than the view of say, the evangelicals. There is one thing I don't get; at what point in the evolutionary process did humans obtain a soul?
     
  6. Dec 20, 2004 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We're getting off topic here.
     
  7. Dec 25, 2004 #6
    To Kc
    There is only ONE type of Christian that is one who believes in the actions and tenets of Christ -- you also have to believe that this person actually existed -- which is probably unproveable - but you can subscribe to the actions , if you wish -- I think that they are pretty good.
    Evolution is a very emotive word it sort of implies 'better' but the facts are that various species have outlived 'man' for millions of years -- and probably will in the future -- Long live the cockroach.
    If man aspires to be 'better' then HE/She will have to prove that -- an interesting contest , but I think bacteria have the edge -- well that is if you discount planets moons Galaxies and so on.
    Humans are just basically arrogant and they have not learned a thing -- well could be they never will -- WHY should they -- just because they think they have some sort of right ????????
    I find it really curious ( in a really stupid way ) that the mentors here are posting pre assembled answers to legitimate questions --- just shows HOW MUCH they really care !!!!!!!!!!!!! ( maybe they get PAID )
    See you will NOT find truth just by asking others -- there is NO guarantee that they know either -- even tho' they would not like to admit this -- NO-One does
    The 'truth ' can only lie in ones -self , it is YOUR life , and you are distinct, virtually cut off from all and anything -- except -- perhaps your maker -- for sure you did not make yourself -- nor can you change one whit of yourself --
    It is a real dilemma -- what should we believe ????.
    Well finally it's just up to you -- no -one else can say -- and no-one else knows the truth. SEE you have free rein to do as you see fit -- you are a GOD -- but like all children you have to gradually grow up -- you cannot expect to understand every thing at one instant -- we do not expect our children to do that, then why should we expect that of anybody else including ourselves. ??????????
    WE ARE CHILDREN -- but wanton ones at that.
    Ray -- Have a great Holiday whatever your beliefs
     
  8. Dec 25, 2004 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, they don't.

    This thread is about the shroud and science, nothing else. From here on, any off-topic posts will be deleted.
     
  9. Dec 25, 2004 #8

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    you guys should see a program on National Geographic Shroud. Basically they debunked this whole story completely.

    Oh and Da Vinci is a genius. Thats all Ima say.
     
  10. Dec 25, 2004 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I didn't see any transcripts available. Maybe more later.

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com.a...p?mode=program&tdatetime=12/5/2004+9:30:00+PM
     
  11. Dec 25, 2004 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    More from National Geographic
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html
     
  12. Dec 26, 2004 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Will the drama never end? :biggrin:
     
  13. Jan 27, 2005 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Turin shroud older than thought

    http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1289491.htm
     
  14. Mar 26, 2005 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  15. Mar 26, 2005 #14
    Someone was asking what we should believe in. Nothing would be the proper answer to that question.
     
  16. Mar 26, 2005 #15

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Tough to do. Some believe only in their own consiousness. Others believe only in the outside world. Even Decartes trying to doubt everything wound up believing that he doubted!
     
  17. Mar 26, 2005 #16

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Tough to do. Some believe only in their own consiousness. Others believe only in the outside world. Even Decartes trying to doubt everything wound up believing that he doubted!
     
  18. Apr 6, 2005 #17

    Ian

    User Avatar

    This 'shroud' you are all discussing could not have anything to do with Jesus Christ.
    The Bible tells us that His body was bathed in an excessive amount of spices and resins and then wrapped in linen cloth.
    There is no evidence of any of that on the Turin shroud.
    There were also two peices of cloth according to the Bible; these were found lying in separate places after His ressurection, but the shroud of Turin is one piece.
    Of course it's a forgery.

    Thread closed. Continued here:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1214833
    Ivan
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Shroud's Second Image
  1. Shroud of Turin (Replies: 55)

  2. Is Turin Shroud a fake? (Replies: 23)

  3. Shroud of Turin (Replies: 184)

  4. Aura imaging (Replies: 11)

  5. The Da Vinci Shroud (Replies: 4)

Loading...