DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Shroud of Turin

I ran my first Bulletin Board on a Commodore 64 and a Hayes 300/1200 baud modem in 1986. It was called the Big Bang Burger Bar.

Does that answer your question?

I fail to see how a few yards of cloth is pseudoscience. Saying that the cloth defies science would be more accurate.

except there are... smh...

Never met an atheist who had explanation for how/why the trillions of cells making up a human body form....the smartest scientist all agree on Intelligent Design.

Again, I ask explain the Shroud....explain the documented miracles from Lourdes?

JMHO, God's given all of us a mind, the old simplest answer that makes sense is the most likely answer.

Lastly, none of us are GOD, we exist thru his pleasure- we'll all find out who was right one day....you're only betting eternity.....peace.

Which could mean aliens as well.

But what if God created the Aliens.

A mystery of the ages.

It is a rather naive thought process when you think about the concept of alien life. I'm not talking about aliens visiting earth per say. I'm simply speaking of life forms on other planets.

Every star is like a sun and each has a solar system. There are actually billions of stars. To think that with all of those solar systems that exist, that only one planet, earth, in those billions of solar systems contains life tells us just how self absorbed human beings really are.

You should hope he created them first and you’re the new and improved model.

Oh no I am the old broken down model that he made improvements on

It's because many atheists don't care or just accept "cells are cells and the formation of life processes are something I'm not interested in researching further."

Carl Sagan went on record saying that he has to be an agnostic as he could neither confirm or deny the existence of a higher power. He said he's effectively an atheist, but he can't actually be one not knowing of the proof to support either full theist or atheist view.

Neil deGrasse Tyson holds a similar view to Sagan, too.



Explanantion from Lourdes from a neutral opinion.



So you're trying to use Occam's Razor. The most simplest explanantion is usually true.

However how is it simple that a belief system, one which borrows heavily from other belief systems, is the factually correct one? How is this also possible as members from different religion all have experiences that match their theology rather than everything being juedo-christian when someone experiences a NDE?



This is fine and all until we start using this as a basis to form laws over dogma.

Believe what you want. Just don't legislate based on an unproven text with sketchy factual historic merit.

For life similar to life on earth, it is unlikely that we will find another such planet. The planet has to be a certain size, a certain distance from its sun, it has to have the right type of sun, the right atmosphere, the right level of gravity, water, fertile soil, an asteroid belt, the proper strength magnetic field, (so they have to have a metal core) the right size moon, in the right orbit, the right position in its galaxy, in the correct type of galaxy, in the right position in its solar system, and many, many other factors. (not too close to the galactic core)

In order for us to ever find and interact with potential alien visitors would require technology that is, in many ways, impossible. The closest solar system to us is about 4.4 light years away. That is an impossible distance for any craft we can imagine, at least one without a warp drive engine. (Mr. Scott, beat me up) That is just one solar system. Want to go to the closest galaxy? Andromeda is your destination, and it is only 2.5 million light years away.

There are billions and maybe trillions of galaxies. They are also moving away from us at great speeds. The universe is not "locked" into position. Stars are somewhat locked into position, relatively speaking, within the galaxy, but eventually (maybe billions and billions of years) there will be no stars visible that are not withing our solar system, because others will be moving away from us, relatively, at faster than light speeds.

There is one other possibility ...... the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are moving closer to one another, and eventually the outer arms of the 2 galaxies will collide. This is estimated to happen within about 4.5 billion years .... however, the good news is that earth will cease to be habitable in a little over 3.5 billion years. (thinking positively)

So, in short, the odds of us "finding", definitively, life on another planet is very, very small.

Hey Hitt, you might enjoy this. I don't know, definitively, a lot about the subject matter they discuss, but it is an interesting watch anyway.

Everyone is agnostic as NO ONE has the answer. You're generally either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Thanks for the intelligent response- noted you have most of the major religions symbols covered, got all the bases covered. The diversity of the world is amazing.

JMHO, as you indicated- when we read something we must consider who wrote it, when, what their biases are, and what their message is. Yet, if they'd not written anything, we'd be completely in dark.

You didn't comment on the 3-dimensions of photo of the Shroud of Turin, NO ONE- scientist, mathematician, photographers, etc., etc. can explain it- nor did you comment on the Biblical documentation of the Shroud, specifically the head covering-the Sudarium, the burial cloth- the Shroud, all matching scourge marks, and all matching stains. Lastly, the image isn't a painting, normal stain, etc....it has been examined is less than human hair width, doesn't penetrate the cloth- sits on very top ONLY- AND "could" have been created in a resurrection type event.

Your response to Lourdes miracles- JMHO- seems you dismissed them as old medical mistakes- ie they don't exist. Wonder how many miracles have occurred and haven't been reported due to the exposure one gets by putting themselves out there- just like the folks we have running/being President- that's the best we've got. Lots of medical people see things they can't explain and don't want to discuss due to exposure.

Watched your NDE stuff, interesting-we are always learning more about the human body. Smart folks always coming up with new info AND their THEORIES.

Please give me sites/ religious artifacts/ miracles from other religions similar to the Shroud.... I'd LOVE to review them. I know Muslims consider Mohammad was messenger of God and they consider Jesus as a prophet...just NOT the son of God, nor God himself.

I don't want to push my religious beliefs on anyone, nor do I wish to legislate my religion- God gave us all choices, it is up to us to make informed decisions.

Peace to all

Not really. As a Christian I think you must realize that God told us "our story". The strong possibility there are other stories for other planets aren't as far fetched as you wish to make it sound.

Any within any reasonable possibility of being reached by humanity are few and very, very, very far between. It takes all of the factors I listed, plus even more, to have a possibility of supporting life. (ozone layer, nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere, and others) Miss any of those factors, and the possibility of finding anything above the level of microbes is very unlikely.

There are planets that appear to have water. However, some to much of the rest of the picture is missing.

As a huge sci-fi fan growing up, I was hugely hopeful that other planets might hold life; life that we might be able to explore and even interact with. However, the distances are an enormous obstacle. The closest solar system, within our own galaxy, is 4.4 light years or so away. Our very fastest, experimental probe can reach about 154,000 miles/hour. Each light year is about 6 trillion miles. that would mean that we have to travel almost 26 trillion miles. That would take a rather leisurely 170 or so million years to get to our closest neighboring solar system at our very fastest spacecraft. We would have to hit unimaginable speeds, that defy the laws of physics. There is little chance that we manage to travel at speeds like that. (and certainly not in either of our lifetimes) Beside reaching that speed, we would have to manage to have shields that would prevent catastrophic damage from ordinary matter that would otherwise impact the ship, the ability to handle course corrections, braking, not to mention the effect that such speeds would have on a human body.

It's incredibly unlikely that we will see all of these things managed in order for us to simply reach the nearest solar system.

The possibility of any other life form to reach earth or for us t6o reach them are very remote. I mean it would have to be in another solar system. I even stated that it may not be advanced life forms.

But one thing I won't do is this. I won't question that if God did it here it isn't logical to conclude he can't do it elsewhere.

Thanks for sharing the movie, watched whole thing and it was very informative....funny how what I stated above about history, depends on who's writing it and what their biases are, what their mission is...evolution and big bang theory, most of us have had that disconnect since school, thanks for sharing again.

The fossil records, if those fossils were beat for thousands of years, they couldn't have been as pristine in the rock, and the tissue out of the dinosaur...WOW.

We all make our choices and should look at things with an open mind- make your choices....Peace.

Unless wormholes are real... and furthermore, if we figure out a way to create/utilize them.

Lotta ifs there. Don't forget the most important "if" in your 2nd scenario ...... if we manage to create them without destroying everything else in the galactic area.

Not saying its practical or not... What is impractical today, may not be in time. In theory, they do exist. Whether or not we can use them to our advantage, will be the real question in time.

Only 117 years ago people were saying flight was IMPOSSIBLE. So who is really to say that 117 years from now traveling at the speed of light will not be possible? Let alone 1,000 years from now. Everybody wants to play Miss Cleo instead of having an open mind.

Well .. physics says that travelling at the speed of light is impossible ... at least last time I checked.

I guess if you could somehow achieve faster then light travel, you could actually arrive at your destination before you left.

Yet before the laws of physics many folks said things were impossible that are not now.

That depends on the mode of travel. I think the answer for faster than light travel is to encase the ship in a gravetational bubble, and move the space around you. Theoretically, the ship does not move at all, and there is no inertia inside the bubble. As you are not traveling at the speed of light within the bubble, relativity does not apply (it's all relative anyway). Gravity is the key. Once we can overcome that, we'll be able to travel anywhere.

Currently, we are using propellant travel. Push a chemical reaction out the back, you move forward. There isn't enough propellant in the world to get us anywhere near the speed of light.

Why do damn religious people impose their specific religion onto the rest of the public. Into public schools? Into government institutions? Into law?

The Atheist view is a religion. It takes great faith to decide that we come from nothing, are nothing, and return to nothing ...... and yet Atheists have no problem with their worldview, their religion, being expressed in public and taught in public schools.

Just in case anyone wants to contradict me ....

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

Religion legal definition of religion
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion

I would also ask this: If a person is fired from their job, or is not hired for a job, because they are an Atheist, in such a case, should they have any protection under the law? If so, why? If Atheism is not a religious expression of belief, then why would its expression be protected by the Constitution?

People have relentlessly pursued the removal of any mention of God from our public life ... yet that is, in essence, expression of an Atheist worldview, and as such, should also be forbidden from being expressed in public.

Actually it's the very absence of faith.

No, it is a faith in nothing. If it were simply a lack of faith, Atheists would have as much concern about someone else expressing their faith as they do in celebrating the secular aspect of Christmas. They have a faith in nothing, which, unfortunately, many defend and espouse more fervently that many Christians do.

Which is the very definition of an absence of faith.



Which is the very definition of an absence of faith.

Again, according to the Supreme Court .....

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

Show me where the SCOTUS says atheism is a religion. Your claim is based on your opinion that you believe that atheism "meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God".

When people believe something is scientific fact that doesn't mean "parallel to the place held by God".

Just because you perceive someone as your enemy doesn't make it so.

Often time Christians get upset when they see the separation of church and state taken to task. They somehow can't see that having God in their own life doesn't mean forcing its symbols down the throats of others. As such, they create an enemy.

You (purposely) missed the rest .....

The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

If a person believes that "nothing", "Man is his own supreme being", or "No God", is their belief, then that is a religious expression.

I'll ask again, if I have an employee, and I find that he is an Atheist, would I be within my rights to fire him because he has that belief, without consequence, or not?

Ohio is a right to work state. All you have to do is say you no longer want him as an employee. You don't have to state a reason.

To include the second part as you are doing, it first has to meet the first standard I quoted.

What it says is pretty much you can believe in a watermelon and it can be a religion. Remember "The Church of Cannabis"?

International Church of Cannabis

Denver, Colorado

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/international-church-of-cannabis



Hopefully that helps clear things up for you.

Yep, I do believe that the denial of God is a religion. Atheists worship Darwin, Secular Humanism, "nothing", and the idea that there is no God. Their voice, and denial of expression, should be the same as others.

I would like to see the documentation that states atheists worship Darwin as their deity.

What is Darwin's holy book?

Come on YTown, you're better than this.

Do you know who Richard Dawkins is?

Yep. I’ve read The God Delusion. The dude loves the sound of his own voice. Nowhere in there does he say Darwin is his deity.

I may be agnostic but Dawkins is one I find extremely annoying.

It's funny ..... he was having a conversation, on the radio, with a Cardinal, (I think that was his position) and Dawkiins threw up this survey that said that a certain percentage of self identified Christians could not name the 1st book of the New Testament ...... and calling them out as false Christians. (Frankly I believe that Christians should read their Bibles daily, and should be able to answer that simple of a Biblical question) He also stated that a certain percentage do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, or that Jesus Christ is the Son of God .... and of those, actually I would have to also wonder if they are Christians or not.

Anyway, this Cardinal asked Dawkins if Darwin's work isn't kind of his bible .... and he said yes ..... and the Cardinal asked him to tell him the full name of "On the origin of species .." . It was funny, because as he was struggling through, trying to remember it .... in the middle he calls on God's name.