Originally posted by googlefudgeI've spent most of my life as an atheist, so for one thing it takes one to know one. I've also watched as you and a few others here are quick to tell creationists how and why they are wrong but very slow to actually listening to what they say. But to be fair about this, I'm content to sit back and watch until I see you doing this before calling you on it. I'm sure you won't keeping me waiting for very long.
[b]So says the expert in speaking from ignorance.
How about you actually ask us atheists what we think rather than make up
strawman bull**** versions of what we think.
Show me a supernatural phenomena for science to study and then we can see if sciences methods are up to it.
So are you are telling me that science, which is only able to study natural phenomena, is also able to explain a supernatural event? Or is this your way of being clever by implying there is no such thing as a supernatural event?
I'll give you a hint. If you claim you were only trying to be clever then the screwy logic of your challenge will probably go unnoticed.
Originally posted by lemon lime'supernatural' is an incoherent concept designed to avoid logic.
So are you are telling me that science, which is only able to study natural phenomena, is also able to explain a supernatural event? Or is this your way of being clever by implying there is no such thing as a supernatural event?
So why do you claim science is only able to study natural phenomena? Science is about studying patterns. Science can be used to study any pattern. Therefore is supernatural phenomena are not subject to scrutiny by science then they do not follow patterns, ie they are random. But if this is the case, then why call them 'supernatural'? Why not just say 'random'?
Originally posted by googlefudgeScience has already studied the Shroud of Turin and apparently were not up to the task of uncovering its supernatural mysteries which still baffle them.
So says the expert in speaking from ignorance.
How about you actually ask us atheists what we think rather than make up
strawman bull**** versions of what we think.
However while we are on the subject...
Science is the rational study of the reality we live in... Whatever the nature of
that reality.
Show me a supernatural phenomena for ...[text shortened]... we can
see if sciences methods are up to it.
Till then, natural phenomena are all there is.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's a piece of medieval cloth...
Science has already studied the Shroud of Turin and apparently were not up to the task of uncovering its supernatural mysteries which still baffle them.
The Instructor
What's supernatural about it?
And for the record, scientists do not have full access to the shroud, because
the Catholics are too scared of what we might prove if we did have full access.
So saying that scientists haven't got all the answers for who made the shroud
and how is rather disingenuous given that they are not aloud to touch it.
Originally posted by googlefudgeScience proves the Shroud of Turin is that of Jesus
It's a piece of medieval cloth...
What's supernatural about it?
And for the record, scientists do not have full access to the shroud, because
the Catholics are too scared of what we might prove if we did have full access.
So saying that scientists haven't got all the answers for who made the shroud
and how is rather disingenuous given that they are not aloud to touch it.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Shroud is probably a fake.
Science proves the Shroud of Turin is that of Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MMOAV-xYFs
The Instructor
The cloth is probably not old enough.
If it was old enough(unlikely) it could have belonged to anyone.
It may have belonged to someone called Jesus (unlikely).
That Jesus may have been the Jesus of the bible (unlikely)
Who may have been crucified.
So maybe you have a cloth from a crucified man.
So what?
I hope to god you never sit on a jury if you think that rag is evidence!
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think you should never be on a jury, because you will not consider the evidence. Did you even notice that the blood tested AB positive and double x Chromosome? Not only is the blood type very rare, but the double x chromosome is consistent with a virgin birth. Who else but Jesus do you know that has been claimed to be a product of a virgin birth? So it can't just belong to any man as you so arrogantly state.
The Shroud is probably a fake.
The cloth is probably not old enough.
If it was old enough(unlikely) it could have belonged to anyone.
It may have belonged to someone called Jesus (unlikely).
That Jesus may have been the Jesus of the bible (unlikely)
Who may have been crucified.
So maybe you have a cloth from a crucified man.
So what?
I hope to god you never sit on a jury if you think that rag is evidence!
The Instructor
Tulane University physicist Dr. Frank J. Tipler reasons that if the Gospels’ account of the virgin birth is true, then Jesus’ DNA makeup would have no Y chromosome because he did not have a human father, but instead have two X chromosomes. However, since Jesus was clearly male, he must have the SRY gene. But the SRY gene, instead of being in the Y chromosome, was inserted into a location where it is not normally found – inside one of the two X chromosomes imparted from Mary, his mother.
And that’s exactly what a team of Italian researchers found.
In January 1995, led by Professor Marcello Canale of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Genoa, a group of Italian researchers, including several workers who had invented the standard DNA test for gender, conducted a DNA analysis of the blood on the Shroud of Turin and on the Oviedo Cloth (also called the Sudarium of Oviedo). A recent report by scientists confirms that the Shroud is not a fake. Mark Guscin provides strong evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain, is the cloth described in John 20:7 as being wrapped around Jesus’ head.
Here is Dr. Tipler’s account (from pages 183-187 of his book):
Normally, the results of a DNA test of the blood on such a famous object would be published in English in a major scientific journal. … Not so the results of this DNA test. The results were published, in Italian, in the very obscure Italian journal devoted to the study of the Turin Shroud. Furthermore, only the raw data were published. That is, the Genoa team published black-and-white Xerox copies of the computer output of the DNA analyzer. This is never, never done. Always, the data are presented in a neat table or figure, and they are accompanied by a discussion of their significance. The Genoa team made no effort to interpret their data.
But I was able to interpret the data at once. They are the expected signature of the DNA of a male born in a Virgin Birth! …
The Turin Shroud data show 107 (106+1) but not trace of a 112 base pair gene. The Oviedo Cloth data show 105 (106-1) but no trace of a 112 base pair. The X chromosome is present, but there is no evidence of a Y chromosome. This is the expected signature of … virgin birth, the XX male generated by an SRY inserted into an X chromosome. It is not what would be expected of a standard male.
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/the-christmas-miracle-scientific-evidence-of-the-virgin-birth/
Originally posted by wolfgang59There are no other virgin births that I have heard of.
Have all the other virgin births produced a male with double x chromosome?
Consistent?!?!!?
According to what I posted above, the Doctor states the result of the DNA analyzer of the blood on both cloths are what would be expected of a virgin birth of a male.
So the use of the word "consistent" that I repeated from the man from the previous video is probably not the correct word to use, unless he knows of other virgin births. The Doctor said "what would be expected" which is probably the correct way to state it.
The Instructor