Scientific analysis of scroll indicates Jesus probaly had a wife

Originally posted by RJHinds
Googlefudge:

For the Shroud to be proof of the resurrection, then it must be possible to explain it's existence ONLY by JC's resurrection.

The Near Genius:

Yes, that is the only way it can be explained today. The scientists have no other explanation.

What resurrection? This cloth, even if real, is a DEATH shroud. The cloth alone, even if it were proven to be JC, is not even close to being proof of some kind of resurrection because that would have happened after the cloth was used.

You are too addled and besotted with your religion to see that though.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Googlefudge:

For the Shroud to be proof of the resurrection, then it must be possible to explain it's existence ONLY by JC's resurrection.

The Near Genius:

Yes, that is the only way it can be explained today. The scientists have no other explanation.

Sure they can.

Lets say for a moment that JC was a real person and that we had convincing evidence
that he was crucified and that this cloth was wrapped around his dead body.
[in reality no such evidence exists, but this is a hypothetical so lets roll with it]

In that case we have your proposed explanation that the cloth was around JC's
body and then he came back to life and [presumably] took the cloth off himself
or had it taken off him by angels or something.

Or an alternative explanation that someone took the cloth off of his dead body
for some purpose [re-wrapping after doing a quick botch job the first time,
souvenir hunting... ect] leaving JC still dead.


Both of those explanations leave us with the Shroud we see today, but one
doesn't include anything supernatural happening, and is thus more probable.

There are a huge number of potential explanations, none of which require anything
supernatural to occur.

Originally posted by googlefudge


There are a huge number of potential explanations, none of which require anything
supernatural to occur.

I don't believe anyone said that a non-supernatural theory is impossible. I don't see your point, other than to espouse your personal belief that supernatural theories are inferior to natural theories.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sure they can.

Lets say for a moment that JC was a real person and that we had convincing evidence
that he was crucified and that this cloth was wrapped around his dead body.
[in reality no such evidence exists, but this is a hypothetical so lets roll with it]

In that case we have your proposed explanation that the cloth was around JC's
body a ...[text shortened]... a huge number of potential explanations, none of which require anything
supernatural to occur.

A hypothetical is not science. I only deal with real science on the Science Forum.

Originally posted by Eladar
I don't believe anyone said that a non-supernatural theory is impossible. I don't see your point, other than to espouse your personal belief that supernatural theories are inferior to natural theories.

Then you failed to read and/or comprehend the post I was responding to.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Googlefudge:

For the Shroud to be proof of the resurrection, then it must be possible to explain it's existence ONLY by JC's resurrection.

The Near Genius:

Yes, that is the only way it can be explained today. The scientists have no other explanation.

I believe this is the post you were responding to.

In it RJ makes the assumption that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. How would a natural explanation work here?

Originally posted by RJHinds
A hypothetical is not science. I only deal with real science on the Science Forum.

Wrong on both counts.

Hypotheticals are ABSOLUTELY part of science. Utilising hypotheticals is
taught in both school and university science classes and there is a famous
debate held on quantum mechanics where hypotheticals were used extensively
to explore the new quantum mechanics and what that theory said about the
nature of reality.

The fact that you don't think that hypotheticals are a part of science simply shows
how desperately and shockingly ignorant about science you are.

Originally posted by Eladar
I believe this is the post you were responding to.

In it RJ makes the assumption that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. How would a natural explanation work here?

Sigh.

I said "For the Shroud to be proof of the resurrection, ..."

He said "... that is the only way it can be explained today..."

So RJHinds said that the ONLY explanation of the Shroud is that it
was wrapped around JC and then JC resurrected.

So I responded by providing an explanation FOR THE SHROUD that
is not supernatural. Proving Hinds wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh.

I said "For the Shroud to be proof of the resurrection, ..."

He said "... that is the only way it can be explained today..."

So RJHinds said that the ONLY explanation of the Shroud is that it
was wrapped around JC and then JC resurrected.

So I responded by providing an explanation FOR THE SHROUD that
is not supernatural. Proving Hinds wrong.

Anyone who thinks that science can prove anything correct doesn't understand how things work. RJ is making the same faulty assumption as the original post in this thread. Perhaps that was the point he was trying to make.

Originally posted by Eladar
Anyone who thinks that science can prove anything correct doesn't understand how things work. RJ is making the same faulty assumption as the original post in this thread. Perhaps that was the point he was trying to make.

No. RJHinds has been claiming that the Shroud proves the resurrection for
about a decade.

And Science can indeed prove things, as long as you don't require absolute
100% certainty in your definition of prove.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No. RJHinds has been claiming that the Shroud proves the resurrection for
about a decade.

And Science can indeed prove things, as long as you don't require absolute
100% certainty in your definition of prove.

If he was trying to make the connection or not, I find the relevance of his post to the topic of this thread both entertaining and interesting.

Originally posted by RJHinds
A hypothetical is not science. I only deal with real science on the Science Forum.

You don't deal with real science, EVER. All you have is your hatred of evolution and an old Earth. That is not science. That is politics. Big difference.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wrong on both counts.

Hypotheticals are ABSOLUTELY part of science. Utilising hypotheticals is
taught in both school and university science classes and there is a famous
debate held on quantum mechanics where hypotheticals were used extensively
to explore the new quantum mechanics and what that theory said about the
nature of reality.

The f ...[text shortened]... a part of science simply shows
how desperately and shockingly ignorant about science you are.

You are confusing any hypotheical idea with a scientific hypothesis.

hy·po·thet·i·cal

ADJECTIVE

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.

For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh.

I said "For the Shroud to be proof of the resurrection, ..."

He said "... that is the only way it can be explained today..."

So RJHinds said that the ONLY explanation of the Shroud is that it
was wrapped around JC and then JC resurrected.

So I responded by providing an explanation FOR THE SHROUD that
is not supernatural. Proving Hinds wrong.

No. There are loads of scientific evidence that you are just ignoring. Read the reports from the scientists that have examined it and you will see. Also, look at the videos of the scientific study of the Shroud. Scientists have proved it is not a fake, but can not determine how the image got on the Shroud.

The only scientific theory available is that it got on there by very short wave bursts of light out of the known spectrum that could have happened at the resurrection of the body.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. There are loads of scientific evidence that you are just ignoring. Read the reports from the scientists that have examined it and you will see. Also, look at the videos of the scientific study of the Shroud. Scientists have proved it is not a fake, but can not determine how the image got on the Shroud.

The only scientific theory available is that ...[text shortened]... sts of light out of the known spectrum that could have happened at the resurrection of the body.

I wouldn't ice skate on that thin ice if I were you.