> >Again, I feel that's a compromise - and not a compromise many are > willing to make. > > Oh I would disagree with that...I would expect the vast majority of > educated people have no problems with this, nor do they really > consider it a compromise. First, there is considerable debate about > whether translations of the original Hebrew really do mean "days" in > the Creation story or just some unknown passage of time. Nor does a
I can agree with all of that every single thing you say. BUT - that still doesn't mean that their aren't many (MANY) people not willing to compromise on this: their faith informs them of "facts" and they refuse to alter that knowledge. The very act of saying that the bible _may_ have been misinterperated is a compromise to these people! You can't say "science and faith can get along, here's how" and leave out a huge aspect of one or the other: "faith" incudes those millions of fundamentalists that you're ignoring. Whether they're ignore for the sake of argument or not doesn't really matter since they clearly exist. ;^) > belief in the scientific explanation of evolution mean that you cannot > believe that God guided that process. In fact, Genesis even supports > this as the chronology of creation exactly mirrors what science now > tells us was indeed the correct order of events. Science again > supports religion here, as the Big Bang Theory itself tells us that > the universe started at some specific moment of time. That would > support the idea of a Creator as something still has to bring it into > existence at that time. No... it doesn't. I'm sorry to be pendantic but the science doesn't "support" the idea. Rather it simply doesn't contradict it. Considering the huge areas covered by science and faith there are bound to be coincidences but this should be taken to imply support between them. You're also, again, limiting your conception of "faith" - Hinduism believes that the universe is created and destroyed in a multi-trillion-year long cycle. Many faiths believe that Gods are eternal and the "world" was created through combat amongst them. Others believe that the universe always was and always is. You can't claim reconcilation for faith and science and only choose to examine a single, flexible faith out of the thousands that do have existed. > >Actually I've seen just the opposite. Joe Nickell, one of the most > >respected shroud investigators (and a man I greatly admire), makes > >incredibly convincing arguments that the shroud is a 14th century > >fabrication. I'm sorry - I actually won't get into an argument about the Shroud for now. Suffice to say that we disagree. I think you must agree however that the evidence is far from universally accepted in either direction. I will ping a few points tho': > Umm, this guy isn't even a scientist (he's a former stage magician) Which makes him very good at understanding deception and fraud. The best debunkers are those that understand magic, this has always been the case. Having a background in stage magic is actually a huge plus in his field (paranormal investigation). For what it's worth tho' he IS a scientist. He has a PHD in literary investigation and folklore. He's a senior Research Fellow for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. He may not be a test-tube and petri-dish scientist, but he's hardly a guy that just stepped of a stage in Vegas and said "hey, what about this shroud thing!". ;^) Nickell is a respected researcher. > quickly becomes clear when looking at Shroud information is that those > that believe it to be a fake are very selective about what information "fake" is an odd word here. If we're talking only about the actual date of generation then "fake" doesn't really enter into it. It could be a medieval creation on very old cloth (similar to many Ossuaries that are popping up where a modern forger as added material to an ancient artifact). "fake" only really enters into it if the claim is made that this is the actual, factual shroud of Jesus Christ. And there's very little evidence, besides medievel anecdotes, that links the shroud to Jesus. > they present, and often bring up the same arguments that have long > since been scientifically proved invalid, while sites that talk about > it as being authentic (which does not necessarily have to mean any > kind of supernatural explanation for it) often present the opposing > arguments as they are generally so easy to show as false. Here's a > page that presents both sides of the argument on whether it is fake or > not: > > http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm > > The very simple fact is that no one yet has ever been able to produce > an image that has *all* the qualities of the shroud...visually, > anatomically, biochemically, etc. If we can't do it today, and are > still seeking to even explain *what* the image is exactly, how did > some unknown medieval artist manage to create it? This is blatantly unscientific argument. The argument from incredulity logical fallacy is a HUGE red flag. To make the assumption that medieval people were any less clever than we are is a huge mistake. "Because we don't know" is NEVER evidence for anything! In short we can't know - we can make conjectures. But even if one of those methods (or a combination of them) were used we can't replicate the history down to the minute - perhaps it WAS created in the 14th century but from 1st centry cloth? Perhaps the method was actually rather ham-handed but over 600 years exposure to the elements, fire, display, etc caused changes? There are millions of things that we don't know but none of them can be used as positive evidence for anything. >Actually there are several explanations - and the lack of perspective > on the > >shroud's image tends to support the fabrication claim. > > Lack of perspective?? That is a pretty wild claim, as one of the most > amazing things about the shroud is the 3D image encoded into it: > http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/3d.htm As far as I've read the "3D Image" encoded is that of an essentially flat bas relief, NOT that of a full, three-dimensional human face. Try this yourself: dip your face in something then wrap a piece of linen around it. It won't look like the shroud. > >As do the > >historically inaccurate details (such as the position of the nails > from the > >supposed crucifixtion which match 14th century popularization but not > Roman > >practice). > > Again, this is just totally false and the exact opposite of what is > true. The nails on the shroud are in the wrist which has been shown to I'm wrong on this - sorry. False memory (I was reading about stigmata recently). > sharp contract to all the art of the medieval period (and even much up > to today) which shows nails in the palm. It's actually one of the best > arguments *for* the shroud being authentic. There is much other > forensic evidence from the shroud that simply would not be known to > those purported to have faked it. It's good evidence... but if it's the best then it's not very good at all. Again, even taking all your evidence at face value does not in any way place JESUS in this shroud. ;^) It's even worse in the case of the shroud since study is so inhibited. For example McCrone's evidence was ignored (and he was vilified) but no confirming tests were allowed. The radio-carbon dating results were disputed but no confirming tests allowed. The tests that might put the issue to rest (radio carbon dating of part of the image, destructive spectroscopy, etc) aren't allowed. Personally I think there is more than enough issues here to be very skeptical of any claims. Until definitive tests are allowed the issue for me is moot. > >a site that begins with the line "No One > >Can Explain Shroud of Turin Pictures of Jesus" hardly strikes me as > >unbiased. > > Uh why? Since when does science explain everything? They aren't > stating it to be the burial cloth of Jesus (actually they clearly > state that this can probably never be determined), just that these > images cannot be explained which is certainly true. And I'm not saying > it's 100% unbiased...clearly on a topic such as this virtually > everyone has a bias on one side or the other. It's a statement of unending fact. "No One Can Explain" Like so many Shroud supporters there's no indication at all of any controversy, questions or proposals - it's a statement of fact. > >So, even giving every credit, we have competing science and not a > consensus. > > Hardly competing science...Nickell's stuff simply isn't good, > peer-reviewed science. What "science" he does quote, like McCrone's > work...has been pretty much disproven by everyone else and has > basically no corroborating opinions. Because no corroborating tests are allowed. You can't take the ball and go home and claim that as evidence that the ball doesn't exist! Nickell actually doesn't perform science in this case - he investigates. For example you don't need to respect or trust Nickell when we points out that the chemical "blood" results obtained are very close to those known to be produced from tempera paint. You instead look at the scientist being referenced. > >However we also have one party emotionally invested in an outcome and > that's > >a huge red flag right up front. > > Uh, I would say that your guy is the party emotionally invested in the > outcome, as the idea of an authentic shroud conflicts with his views. How so? He has no investment in the matter one way or the other. > Christians of faith have no need to believe in a true shroud or not... > the Church themselves even does not say it is authentic. Whether the > shroud is real or not does not say anything about the existence and/or > divinity of Jesus. However, an authentic shroud does *indeed* threaten > those that *don't* believe in him or that such a relic could exist. The authenticity of the shroud simply must mean more to faithful Christians than it would to atheists. Even if the shroud was clearly, unambigiously the death shroud of Jesus Christ (an actual historical person, as I'm sure any atheist would agree) does not give him any claim to divinity. To atheist the point is moot - we'll follow the evidence. Damn... it looks like I did argue. ;^) My point is simply that the case is not cut and dried and even granting those points does nothing to unify science and faith. That's the real point to be made since we got off topic: how does the shroud do anything to reconcile science and faith? Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250203 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
