• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Scientists: Shroud of Turin is REAL

The division of science versus religion is an effective way of separating people and maintaining ignorance. One group is ignorant about science. One is ignorant about the spiritual world.

Why not just encourage everyone to explore both worlds to their limits? Instead of making people waste their time by pitting them against eachother. It seems like an easy trick performed on the masses.
 
^
?Agreed. We should all love investigating/testing and observing the wonders of creation.
No matter what our spiritual beliefs are.

Louis Pasteur balanced the two very well. He shredded the age old Greek idea of spontaneous generation (which contemporaries of his time believed ie Chuck Darwin) and proved Law of Biogenisis.
He intelligently followed his hypothesis that life doesnt come from non life. He tested what he obverved and was proven right. True science.

This lead to pasteurization and vaccinations.
You may not even be reading this if not for the
vast intellect of this man.
As if that wasnt enough, he followed another intelligent observarion of his and gave us Laws of Thermodynamics. Testable and observable.
Again empirical science.
Sadly because of biased religious dogma you still have people that will not accept real settled science to indulge in pseudoscience that uses imigination instead of emperical evidence.
Odd scientist ignoring science, but dogmas can be tough to expell I guess.
Pasteur also proved another very important thing which is to your point......
You dont have to sacrifice science for religious dogma and visa versa :)
 
Louis Pasteur balanced the two very well. He shredded the age old Greek idea of spontaneous generation (which contemporaries of his time believed ie Chuck Darwin) and proved Law of Biogenisis.
He intelligently followed his hypothesis that life doesnt come from non life. He tested what he obverved and was proven right. True science.
Click to expand...

lol.. true science.. mmm-k.. what did he do? Get a brick and wait a couple of days to see if it spontaneous gained life?

You can't prove something isn't real. This is an ass backwards attempt at proving abiogensis can't happen.. ignoring the fact that it could take billions of years in the right conditions..

The incredibly improbable becomes highly probable given enough time and events.

Evolution is testable and observable.. we've done it.

Abiogensis is a hypothesis / theory based on information we know and have.. Hence it being referred to as "likely"..
 
methamaniac said:
^^^
Certainly could.
But that doesnt explain the image.
This is the whole controversy.
Its unexplainable.
Click to expand...

You do know that this was probably a very common look for people of that time, race and area..

And that the image of Jesus that we know today was basically made up by artists.. you know he was probably not a caucasion with brown hair, right?

Or do you mean how the face is there in the first place?
 
Last edited:
^
Dude you are seriously ignorant on this topic!
You havent even seriously investigated this have you?
Doesnt look like you even read all the threads comments.
Not suprising.
When you do, and you will easily find your answer when you do, come on back and we can have a real discussion on why it is unexplainable.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
You can't prove something isn't real.

The incredibly improbable becomes highly probable given enough time and events.
Click to expand...

So you're saying its possible that at any minute monkeys could fly out my arse?
You're right cant prove they cant.

And abiogenisis is imigination
Law of biogenisis is fact.
Fact- life doesnt come from non life.

You're not just disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with Pasteur.
*CUE* ad hominem attack on Louis
 
Yep..

in perhaps the most complete biography of Louis Pasteur, writes:

Absolute faith in God and in Eternity, and a conviction that the power for good given to us in this world will be continued beyond it, were feelings which pervaded his whole life; the virtues of the gospel had ever been present to him. Full of respect for the form of religion which had been that of his forefathers, he came simply to it and naturally for spiritual help in these last weeks of his life
Click to expand...

You know the meaning of the word bias?

And how absurd and stupid an experiment that tries to form life within a life time with very limited resources.

A cat flying out of your ass would be impossible.. unless you already had one up there.

Learn to understand things, please.
 
^
Right on cue...
You're embarring yourself trying to discredit
Pasteor.
You got ballz I give you that
 
Yeah? It was easy.

You cannot conduct an experiment to prove that abiogensis is impossible.. simple as that.

The fact he tried.. fair enough.. but to conclude that it's impossible because it didn't happen during the experiment? You know how stupid that is right?

That's like watching an elephant for 10 seconds and concluding it doesn't need to eat, shit, and they never have babies, they must have been born that size and they never grow.

You are the only one embarrassing yourself, in so many different ways, in almost every single post you make.
 
rickolasnice said:
You are the only one embarrassing yourself, in so many different ways, in almost every single post you make.
Click to expand...

Less ballz more brains.....

You seem to think Law of Biogenisis is false.
If it is a falshood you could could prove it is by showing life forming from non life.
Show us this spontaneous generation in which you speak of.
Its simple. It is falsifiable.
You just cant falsify it.

Have you figured out how images of a crucified man's scurged, beaten, and bloody body got scorched on a shroud without burning it yet?
 
Pssssst.. read this.. you'll love it..

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

The term biogenesis was coined by Henry Charlton Bastian to mean the generation of a life form from nonliving materials, however, Thomas Henry Huxley chose the term abiogenesis and redefined biogenesis for life arising from preexisting life]
Click to expand...

biogenesis means life arising from pre-existing life.

And no i haven't.. I'm not really too interested in trying to work it out either..

But isn't the image blood? It's not burned on to a cloth?
 
Last edited:
I've already mentioned this to you once.
RNA doesnt do anything on its own.
Its information. Thats it. Its stone cold dead.
Its does nothing and directs nothing by itself.
Its like a recipe without hands.
You can use all the intelligence we can muster and we aint cooking up life.

Your time would be better spent figuring out how ability to fly hit the lottery at least 3 times in birds, bats, and bugs. I save the covergent evolution story of appendix evolving 32 different times for PM.
Not so useless after all, uh
 
Last edited:
-_-

OK I'm bored of abiogensis.. I am aware there is no conclusive proof for it..

Wanna answer my questions in the creationism vs evolution thread?
 
methamaniac said:
I've already mentioned this to you once.
RNA doesnt do anything on its own.
Its information. Thats it. Its stone cold dead.
Its does nothing and directs nothing by itself.
Its like a recipe without hands.
You can use all the intelligence we can muster and we aint cooking up life.

Your time would be better spent figuring out how ability to fly hit the lottery at least 3 times in birds, bats, and bugs. I save the covergent evolution story of appendix evolving 32 different times for PM.
Not so useless after all, uh
Click to expand...

LOL yes i replied to that.. you misunderstood the information.. the appendix evolved 32 times as in it went through 32 distinct mutations.. it didn't evolve independently in 32 different species..

I was just writing a long reply but my vision is doing my head in.. read this..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use.html#.VHArSvmsVgg

And I answered your appendix fail in PM, you probably shoulda read it before repeating it here..

The information is saying the appendix evolved 32 times.. as in.. it went through 32 distinct mutations.. NOT independently evolving in 32 species.

And no it wasn't the same mutation in each species.. there is no hint of convergent evolution there.,
 
rickolasnice said:
Pssssst.. read this.. you'll love it..

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/



biogenesis means life arising from pre-existing life.

And no i haven't.. I'm not really too interested in trying to work it out either..

But isn't the image blood? It's not burned on to a cloth?
Click to expand...
No dude its not made of blood.
Thats why I said you need to research.
You're going to be surprised if you really do.
 
Nobody knows.. odd..

But it's dated around medieval time.. could just be a very clever weave job..
 
I really wished you look deaper.
It wasnt weaved bro.
Trust me if it could be easily explained away....
the earth quake crap wouldnt even got printed.
The image only exists in top two micro fibers.
But has all this encoded information.
You can see every wound in the images back and front
 
I already adressed that.
Dont make me have educate you on how and why carbon dating can be wrong.....cause I will
Like I said in my first post,
Carbon dating only thing in the world keeping people from really pooping their pants
 
methamaniac said:
I already adressed that.
Dont make me have educate you on how and why carbon dating can be wrong.....cause I will
Like I said in my first post,
Carbon dating only thing in the world keeping people from really pooping their pants
Click to expand...

lol you joker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top