Is the Galton Board evidence for intelligent design of the universe?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 16, 2023

Intelligent Design, Physics

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Ken Francis writes: “Proof that God placed order out of chaos in the universe. Each ball has a 50-50 chance of bouncing right or left off of each peg as it traverses the board, but every time the result is a bell curve. More proof of Intelligent Design.”

The comments are interesting.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments

~ “external criticism”
KF: PM1, you tried to set up a frame that invites an insulation around internalism.
PM1: I absolutely did no such thing at all. I simply made a perfectly intelligible distinction between different kinds of criticism, and I did so in order to underscore the specific kind of criticism that Plantinga and Slagle are engaged in.
When someone attempts to criticize my position by saying that I am wrong to claim that there isn’t any scientific proof for the realness of near-death experiences, I would simply reply that I made no such claim. So, I would make clear that the person is mistaken about my position WRT NDE, and leave it at that. I would not go on to state, as you do, that this person engages in “external criticism based on criteria to which someone is not committed.” And even now that you have made me aware of the possibility to do so, I won't adopt this practice, because it makes exactly zero sense to me.Origenes_{January 29, 2023
January
01
Jan
29
29
2023
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

PS, by weak form, I here imply that for any A that is/is not/may be/may not be/ is impossible, we may freely ask why and hope with confidence that we may have an answer on inquiry. Where, using PW, we may see that some candidates A are impossible of being, and that others are possible. Of the latter some are contingent and caused, others are necessary and fabric to any possible world.kairosfocus_{January 29, 2023
January
01
Jan
29
29
2023
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

PM1, yes, you did make such claims and continue to do so. However, we both know that a material issue is that many dispute the first principles of logical reasoning (esp. LNC and even weak form principles of sufficient reason thence causality and the necessary beings) and even more dispute demonstrably branch on which we all sit first duties of reason; their name is legion. These principles and duties, however are both manifestly pervasive self evident first principles, that are universally binding. When therefore an ideology or school of thought would dismiss or dispute such -- even though they are "external" to it -- that critique is highly valid and remains so despite objection or dismissal. In fact such resistance becomes evidence of the unreasonableness involved in the school and its doctrine in the military sense. And of course, as self referentiality and incoherence are bound up in these, such a critique is valid once substantial. KFkairosfocus_{January 29, 2023
January
01
Jan
29
29
2023
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Q, thanks. As to: "maybe one can suggest that the design of the universe and the shroud of Turin are points where science potentially encounters God." More than the vast majority of people realize.bornagain77_{January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @304, While this is off topic from the evidence of the intelligent design of the universe, you might find this interesting since you brought up the shroud of Turin. It's a stretch, but maybe one can suggest that the design of the universe and the shroud of Turin are points where science potentially encounters God. As you know, the shroud of Turin is the most intensely studied cloth in human history, employing chemical analysis of the dirt in it, the weave pattern, blood type analysis (type AB), holographic 3D imaging, C-14 dating (flawed due to contamination by a medieval re-weaving that repaired a charred corner of the original cloth), pollen analysis, and even some cutting-edge technologies. The Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain, is the face cloth that once covered the face of a crucified man for a few hours. It seems to match up with the face area on the shroud of Turin—wound locations, blood flows, type AB blood . . . and they have different provenances. Here are some references: https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm And here’s a scientific article on the subject from 2015: https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/abs/2015/02/shsconf_atsi2014_00008/shsconf_atsi2014_00008.html And photos http://www.shroudofturin.us/ -QQuerius_{January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

@299
PM1, you tried to set up a frame that invites an insulation around internalism.
I absolutely did no such thing at all. I simply made a perfectly intelligible distinction between different kinds of criticism, and I did so in order to underscore the specific kind of criticism that Plantinga and Slagle are engaged in.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

As well, newly developed 'non-destructive' dating methods have now placed the age of the Shroud at the time of Christ
Why is the Turin Shroud Authentic? – Giulio Fanti* – November 2018 Conclusion excerpt: If, as discussed above, by authenticity of the Shroud is meant a funerary sheet, of very ancient manufacture, of about 2000 years ago, that wrapped the corpse of a man hard tortured and dead on a cross, all the scientific clues considered seem favorable to this hypothesis. Six [8, 10-14] out of seven independent dating methods (and [9] has been widely criticized) indicate that this linen Sheet is datable to a period including the first century after Christ. The most important Relic of Christianity wrapped a corpse. The blood traces correspond to those of a tortured man. The body image cannot be explained, but the most reliable hypotheses refer to an intense and probably very brief burst of energy. The corpse, endowed with considerable corpse rigidity, remained wrapped in the Shroud for a short period, not exceeding forty hours. All these clues therefore confirm the authenticity of the Shroud [27] https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555707.pdf Evidence for the Shroud's authenticity (Timeline of facts) - What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault - November 08, 2019 https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html New technology suggests Shroud of Turin is 2,000 years old - April 2022 Excerpt:,,, a new dating technology has placed the fabric within the time of Christ. WAXS The study was conducted by Dr. Liberato de Caro of Italy’s Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council, in Bari. Dr. de Caro has employed a method known as “Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering,” or WAXS, which measures the natural aging of flax cellulose and converts it to time since manufacture. The process has several key features that make it more desirable than radiocarbon dating, not least of which that it is completely non-destructive to the samples.,,, De Caro explained that the WAXS method was used on a variety of samples of historical textiles that have been documented to be aged from 3000 BC to 2000 AD. He placed the Shroud of Turin against these samples and found that it best matched a piece of fabric known to have come from the siege of Masada, Israel, in 55-74 AD.,,, Pollen De Caro also noted some exciting elements that could help trace the shroud’s history and migration from the Middle East to Europe. He noted that the samples of the shroud contained samples of pollen from the ancient region of Palestine, which could not have originated in Europe. https://aleteia.org/2022/04/22/new-technology-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old/
Now that the flawed carbon dating has finally been overturned, all the other major lines of evidence that strongly indicated the Shroud is authentic, lines of evidence which atheists have simply ignored, now converge and establish the Shroud as authentic.
8 Reasons Why The Shroud Of Turin Might Be The Burial Cloth Of Jesus By Brian Chilton – April 25, 2017 1) The 1988 carbon-dating test was flawed 2) The blood on the Shroud is authentic 3) The image on the Shroud is not a painting 4. The pollen on the Shroud is found exclusively in the Jerusalem area 5. The wounds of the man on the Shroud match the details of Jesus’s crucifixion 6. The points of the face match those of the earliest portraits of Jesus 7. The identical position and type of blood on the face of the Shroud with that of the Sudarium of Oviedo. 8. ,,, high-powered ultraviolet radiation used to make the image on the Shroud. http://reasonsforjesus.com/8-reasons-why-the-shroud-of-turin-might-be-the-burial-cloth-of-jesus/
Perhaps the best piece of evidence that Shroud is not a fraud is the simple fact that the technology that was needed to produce the shroud did not exist in the Middle Ages. And still today, with all our advanced technology, we still cannot reproduce the Shroud in all its detail.
"the closest science can come to explaining how the image of the Man in the Shroud got there is by comparing the situation to a controlled burst of high-intensity radiation similar to the Hiroshima bomb explosion which "printed" images of incinerated people on building walls." - Frank Tribbe - Leading Scholar And Author On Shroud Research Shroud Of Turin Is Authentic, Italian Study Suggests - December 2011 Excerpt: Last year scientists were able to replicate marks on the cloth using highly advanced ultraviolet techniques that weren’t available 2,000 years ago — nor during the medieval times, for that matter.,,, Since the shroud and “all its facets” still cannot be replicated using today’s top-notch technology, researchers suggest it is impossible that the original image could have been created in either period. http://www.thegopnet.com/shroud-of-turin-is-authentic-italian-study-suggests-87037 Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
Moreover, the Shroud image has a very enigmatic photographic negative, 3-D holographic, characteristic to it.
Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis
Basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photography was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about. Moreover, even with our present day technology, we still cannot replicated the image in all its detail. My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please pray tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention the invention and mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments that he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical mad super-genius! As Silver Asiatic commented,
These are big questions to deal with. I’ve never seen any of the shroud-skeptics address this. We see claims that “the shroud is a forgery” and then the discussion ends with that. It seems obvious to me that the skeptics are afraid to go any further and are just relieved that they “silenced” the shroud. But wait – yes, who was this forger? We have 3-D, photographic image of amazing subtlety and refinement. Yes, it’s something that transcends the genius of Leonardo DaVinci. We continue to use 21st century technology just to try to reproduce it. But nobody knows the name or origin of this artistic genius? There is no evidence of a workshop or artistic guild where this innovative creation was designed? Nobody from history ever mentioned this person? This genius-artist only produced this one masterpiece work – a holographic image on a cloth (containing pollen traceable to Jerusalem)? It was not framed or put on display. Not sold to anyone. The artist got nothing from creating it. Even the name of the genius artist disappeared. He never influenced any other artists. No family, friends, artistic community – not even the parish church – ever knew or said who he was? Amazingly, we only discovered the true power of the image when we took a photo negative of it in the 20th century. Yes, where are the medieval instruments used to create it? Everything was just accidentally lost? - Silver Asiatic
Verse:
John 20:3-8 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed.
bornagain77_{January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

FP claims the Shroud of Turin is a fraud from the Middle Ages. i.e. "A fraud that the fraudster is on record of admitting his fraud". Yet, that oft repeated false claim from atheists has been debunked.
Why is the Turin Shroud Not Fake? – Giulio Fanti* – December 04, 2018 Excerpt: The historical age of the Shroud is 1355 when it appeared in France, in Lirey. There are no documented traces of the Turin Shroud before this period. A memorial of the bishop Pierre d’Arcis (1389) reports the furious polemics immediately following the first exposition and his declaration of a fake Assertions on the Shroud history Without going into detailed historical discussions, various authors [2,10,11] have highlighted several traces of the presence of the Shroud from the first centuries after Christ and have reported the controversy with P. d’Arcy. They evidence that the bishop, envious for the great number of persons that visited the exhibition, thus deserting his church, declared that the Shroud was a painted relic. Today we know that the Relic is certainly not a paint. It is curious to add that some these documents about the Shroud were even officially corrected a posteriori. Instead, we must observe that a numismatic study on the Byzantine coins minted starting from 692 AD [4] shows, with a probability very close to 100% that the Shroud was taken as a model for the representation of Christ. The presence of the Shroud of Jesus in the first centuries AD it is not only confirmed by numismatic analysis, but also by numerous examples of Byzantine iconography. https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555715.pdf
There are quite a few other 'small' problems with FP's oft repeated false claim that the Shroud is a fraud. For instance, the carbon dating that had supposedly dated to the Middle Ages has now been overturned. Specifically, the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2004 by none other than Raymond Rogers, the lead chemist on the STURP team. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1988 carbon testing has now been established.
Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 Test Proven False – - Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford - video (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin – Raymond N. Rogers – 2004 Abstract In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between A.D. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample. Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.,,, The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years. per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
Rogers passed away shortly after publishing that paper, but his work was ultimately verified by scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory:
Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review Excerpt: Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today. http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/the-custodians-of-time/ “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008) Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. - Robert Villarreal - Los Alamos National Laboratory http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/ Shroud Carbon Dating Overturned - Robert Villarreal – press release video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlFTVv2l0L4
bornagain77_{January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

FP, do you recognise that without distinct identity -- ponder bits 0/1, alphanumeric text [ASCII etc], codes for images and video involving distinct states, phonemes, etc -- you cannot communicate with text or otherwise, or that non contradiction and excluded middle are close corollaries, or that one may simply ask why something is/is not/may be/cannot be, thence inquire about cause etc? Further, if you do not value truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, fairness etc, that is excellent reason to hold you as an empty troll of no credibility? Do you even realise that by implying want of warrant, you are appealing to said first principles and duties of reason, sitting on the same branch with the rest of us? More can be said but that is enough to show why we are here dealing with universally binding first principles and duties. KF PS, you would be well advised to ponder the following recorded incident with Epictetus:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [ --> Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. We here see the first principles of right reason in action. Cf J. C. Wright]
Our education systems have failed us badly.kairosfocus_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Ford Prefect @302, Yes. Actually, Bornagain77 provides valuable information and links to people who are open and interested. While I'm already familiar with a lot of the information he provides, I do follow the links of my personal interest and appreciate the trove of information he's collected. Besides vituperation, what have you been providing? -QQuerius_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77@295, 296 and 297 writes:
blah, blah, blah
Well, let’s be honest. Does anybody seriously read anything he writes? Especially when he starts ranting about the shroud of Turin? A fraud that the fraudster is on record of admitting his fraud?Ford Prefect_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus writes:
I highlighted universally binding first principles and duties as a relevant answer.
To be fair, you asserted and declared them. That’s a far cry from highlighting them.Ford Prefect_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

PM1, you tried to set up a frame that invites an insulation around internalism. I highlighted universally binding first principles and duties as a relevant answer. Moreover, it is a matter of common enough fact to see setting up a closed circle then taking an implicit exception -- start with pomo use of the six blind men of hindustan. This is directly relevant to a first principle, contradiction, and here to self referential incoherence. Many evasive arguments have been put up but in the end, the incoherence is inescapable. KFkairosfocus_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

@291
I am pointing out something fairly obvious, that one who speaks with disregard to truth, disregards first principles of reason and is more moved to use what persuades rather than what is warranted, rejects something that is on your terms “EXTERNAL” but which is in fact UNIVERSAL AND BINDING. So, the attempt to discredit “external” critiques easily becomes an invitation to relativism, subjectivism and — doubtless inadvertently — will to power nihilism. My capital examples of recent times, of course are Hitler and co, Stalin and co, and the like. The issue of critique and analysis is objective warrant tracing to sound reasoning.
At no point did I ever attempt to discredit external criticism. I said nothing about it, positive or negative. I made the distinction between external criticism and internal criticism (which, by the way, is widespread) in order to underscore a specific feature of Slagle's project: that he, like Plantinga, is attempting to show that naturalism is self-undermining. This requires beginning with the naturalist's own commitments, and then elucidating that those commitments have inferential consequences that contradict the initial commitments themselves. By contrast, an external criticism would begin with commitments that are not specific to the naturalist's own position. My objection to Plantinga is that his attempt to show that naturalism is self-undermining fails. For a while I had thought it failed because he doesn't see that teleosemantics gives the naturalist a way to avoid semantic epiphenomenalism. I then realized that the issue rather is that he doesn't think teleosemantics is compatible with metaphysical or mathematical claims. I still think that the best naturalistic response to Plantinga is this article by Paul Churchland: naturalism is not based on the cognitive capacities as shaped by millions of years of natural selection, but rather is based on the symbolically articulated, culturally scaffolded, and technologically augmented social practices, especially those specific to modern science. What Plantinga would need to show is that science cannot be naturalized: that we cannot use metaphysical naturalism in order to explain why scientific practices, when all goes well, disclose features of the structure of reality. For whatever it may be worth, I regard Rouse's Articulating the World: Conceptual Understanding and the Scientific Image as the most successful attempt to date in naturalizing scientific knowledge. I think that anyone who wants to defend the Plantinga-Slagle line that metaphysical naturalism is incompatible with scientific knowledge itself should frame that criticism in response to Rouse.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

As well, Kevin Moran, an optical engineer who has studied the Shroud of Turin, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”
Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999 Discussion Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,, Theoretical model It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. Discussion The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.” https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf
Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud of Turin also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was also dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf
Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://www.predatormastersforums.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3014106 Lazzaro’s (approx.) 30th slide in his powerpoint presentation states, Excerpt: 34 thousand billion watt is an impressive number but,, * Back to basics: let us consider the fraction A/B. If B is very small then A/B results in a very large number.,,, * 17 joules energy/0.00000001 seconds results in 1.7 billion watt. It is called “peak power” which different of the commonly used “average power”. * The above peak power was delivered to 1 cm^2 flax. Being the average man skin surface = 2 m^2 = 20,000 cm^2, we have 34 thousand billion watt necessary to complete the body image on the Shroud. https://www.academia.edu/38029774/Linen_Coloration_by_Pulsed_Radiation._A_Review
That it is even possible for the human body to emit such ‘quantum light’ is revealed by the following,
Photocount distribution of photons emitted from three sites of a human body – 2006 Excerpt: Signals from three representative sites of low, intermediate and high intensities are selected for further analysis. Fluctuations in these signals are measured by the probabilities of detecting different numbers of photons in a bin. The probabilities have non-classical features and are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons. Measurements with bins of three sizes yield same values of three parameters of the squeezed state. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520060 Humans Glow in Visible Light – July 2009 – with photographs Excerpt: Past research has shown that the body emits visible light, 1,000 times less intense than the levels to which our naked eyes are sensitive. In fact, virtually all living creatures emit very weak light, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32090918
Thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with a very plausible, and empirically backed, reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Various attempts have been made to find a mathematical workaround for this ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, M-Theory, etc.. They have all failed. In fact, “The ones currently most promising adopt a very radical attitude to infinity. They deny that the infinitely small can exist in the universe, but prescribe a minimum possible scale, essentially the so-called Planck scale.”
“Attempts to reconcile relativity and quantum theory have been made. The ones currently most promising adopt a very radical attitude to infinity. They deny that the infinitely small can exist in the universe, but prescribe a minimum possible scale, essentially the so-called Planck scale.” – Peter Cameron, Emeritus Professor Mathematics at Queen Mary, University of London
Yet even this attempted workaround of prescribing a minimum possible size will not bridge the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Specifically, it is now proven, via the extension of Godel’s incompleteness into quantum physics, that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”,
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.” http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
In short, and mathematically speaking, the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics, (even if you prescribe a minimum possible size), will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity. i.e. There will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that includes both quantum mechanics and general relativity into a single mathematical equation. And although there will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between quantum mechanics and general relativity, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory if everything’. As I stated previously via William Dembski, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founder of modern physics, Sir Isaac Newton himself, originally envisioned,
‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God… From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experiments.”,,, – Sir Isaac Newton – (Cited from Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by Hooykaas page 49). https://thirdspace.org.au/comment/237 “Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991) Excerpt: Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm
,, and when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
,, then that (very) reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very plausible, and empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Specifically, when scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we ‘surprisingly’ find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. As can be seen in the following ‘backside’ image, and holographic image video, from the Shroud of Turin, there is no flattening on the backside of the body as would be expected if the image on the Shroud had formed if a dead body had merely been laying flat on a slab of rock.
Shroud image – backside https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jPxzJOtRHgLSddLOYbOQ_kpvXUV6aOt0mG-8DZeeEXj7uFSr63hqsGbgknwNBEFFFtrayZsYH8ONdXznreuD1TnOxYOeM72QFFuydody6Bpb1FJ2yNoMLabv_Kub7LA Shroud Hologram – backside image https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYBcIX1YLCg
And in the following video, the late Isabel Piczek, who made a sculpture from the Shroud of Turin states that, “The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.”
“When you look at the image of the shroud, the two bodies next to each other, you feel that it is a flat image. But if you create, for instance, a three dimensional object, as I did, the real body, then you realize that there is a strange dividing element. An interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity. Other strange you discover is that the image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine the clothe was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body, and all of the sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut.” Isabel Piczek – (world renowned sculptor and artist) - 2:20 mark - Turin shroud – – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpdIz5Rp3I
bornagain77_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

EDTA per VJT: ”Does it even make sense to say that one and the same person has two distinct minds – let alone two radically different ones: an infinite one and a finite one?” First off, the trinity has been debated and ably defended by prominent Christian theologians for a very, very, long time. Here is a good and brief overview for the main arguments against the trinity and the main defenses against those arguments.
Defending the Trinity https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/christian-doctrine/defending-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
Thus there is a rich, and long, history in the church of defending the trinity. But as to modern science and the finite and infinite divide in Christianity,. How can the finite and infinite divide found in Christianity possibly relate to modern science? First a little background is necessary, our own William Dembski, (a prominent ID advocate who started this blog), has stated the following as to bridging the finite/infinite divide,
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
Of note: I hold it to be fairly obvious that ‘growing large without measure’ can only ever be a potential infinity. Whereas a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero would be an actual infinity and/or a “completed totality”
Potential Infinity vs. Actual Infinity – June 7, 2012 by Ryan Excerpt: In a potential infinity, one can keep adding or subdividing without end, but one never actually reaches infinity. In a sense, a potential infinity is an endless process that at any point along the way is finite. By contrast, in an actual infinity, the infinite is viewed as a completed totality. http://www.numbersleuth.org/trends/potential-vs-actual-infinity/
And I also note that this actual infinity and/or a “completed totality” fits extremely well with the Augustian theological notion that "this infinity of numbers (potential infinity) is not outside the comprehension of him “whose understanding cannot be numbered” (i.e. God's completed infinity).”
“Every number is defined by its own character so that no number is equal to any other. They are unequal to one another and are different, and the individual numbers are finite, but as a class they are infinite. Does that mean that God does not know all numbers, because of their infinity? Does God’s knowledge extend as far as a certain sum, and end there? No one could be insane enough to say that. Now those philosophers who revere the authority of Plato will not despise numbers and say that they are irreverent to God’s knowledge, For Plato emphasizes that God constructed the world by use of numbers, while we have the authority of Scripture, where God is thus addressed, “You have set all things in order all things by number, measure, and weight.” And the prophet says of God, “He produces the world according to number’. And the Savior says in the Gospel, “Your hairs are all numbered”. Never let us doubt then that every number is known to him “whose understanding cannot be numbered”. Although the infinite series of numbers cannot be numbered, this infinity of numbers is not outside the comprehension of him “whose understanding cannot be numbered”.” – St. Augustine – “City of God” – 12th Book, 19th Chapter – Infinity: Aristotle, St. Augustine, Cantor, Gödel – video – 31:29 minute mark https://youtu.be/SMt2VtjMfrU?t=1889
So exactly how does the 'completed infinity' of Christ's resurrection from death possibly relate to modern science? Well, much like the infinite mathematical divide that exists between finite man and infinite God, there is also found to be an infinite mathematical divide between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite. The theory is not renormalizable.”
Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018 Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite. The theory is not renormalizable. https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.
And as theoretical physicist Sera Cremonini stated, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers. Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,, In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy. The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,, Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/
And as Michio Kaku stated in the following video, when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, “you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).”
“Here is the problem (with black holes), right there, when ‘r’ (radius) is equal to zero, The point at which physics itself breaks down. So 1 over ‘r’ equals 1 over 0 equals infinity. To a mathematician infinity is simply a number without limit. To a physicist it is a monstrosity. It means first of all that gravity is infinite at the center of a black hole. That time stops. And what does that mean? Space makes no sense. It means the collapse of everything we know about the physical universe. In the real world there is no such thing as infinity. Therefore there is a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein’s theory.” (And Michio Kaku then notes, when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics) “In fact, you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).” Quantum Mechanics & Relativity – Michio Kaku – The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? – video Science vs God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it – video https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x
bornagain77_{January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

EDTA, Why not post your comment over at TSZ, where VJT and others can respond to it?tangent_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

At first glance, I'm a little bit surprised at VJT here. He is making a common mistake (made here also quite frequently by our skeptical friends) of assuming that human language can convey the fullness of things that originate at a higher level. The first example I ran across was: >"Does it even make sense to say that one and the same person has two distinct minds – let alone two radically different ones: an infinite one and a finite one?" Well, when it comes to a higher/superior being communicating things to inferior beings, one has to simplifications somewhere along the way. One cannot assume that the above claim, the Trinity, etc., are completely expressible in all their depth, in mere human language. We might like it to be that way, so we wouldn't have to keep explaining this background information all the time, but it just can't be avoided. In any case, everywhere I glanced in the linked post, the above error crops up...maybe I'll find more time to study it more closely later--if I can get past the glaring error(s).EDTA_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Hi All There is a post from VJ Torley at TSZ that those interested in Christian apologetics may want to read. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/dr-gavin-ortlunds-defense-of-c-s-lewiss-liar-lunatic-or-lord-trichotomy-and-why-i-think-it-wont-work-on-skeptics/bill cole_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

PM1 & JVL, personalising and polarising. I am pointing out something fairly obvious, that one who speaks with disregard to truth, disregards first principles of reason and is more moved to use what persuades rather than what is warranted, rejects something that is on your terms "EXTERNAL" but which is in fact UNIVERSAL AND BINDING. So, the attempt to discredit "external" critiques easily becomes an invitation to relativism, subjectivism and -- doubtless inadvertently -- will to power nihilism. My capital examples of recent times, of course are Hitler and co, Stalin and co, and the like. The issue of critique and analysis is objective warrant tracing to sound reasoning. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

"And yet you threaten me with sanctions for using the same tactics you have done in the past." Again, I have never attacked you personally. If you disagree with me then please cite the exact thread where I attacked you personally. I don't recall ever doing so. And if I ever inadvertently ever did sink to that level of personally attacking you, I apologize. As far as I can recall, I have always attacked your beliefs, and not you personally, as being 'irrational, insane, mad', etc.. etc.. That is a BIG difference. It is the spirit of open and honest debate that ideas/beliefs, etc.. and not people, can be attacked and/or defended. Indeed, open and honest debate simply would be impossible if beliefs were not allowed to be attacked and defended. Moreover, instead of just calling your beliefs "'irrational, insane, mad', etc.. etc., I have, in my limited ability, always tried my best to use logic and empirical evidence to clearly demonstrate, for all to see, that your Darwinian beliefs are, in fact, "'irrational, insane, mad', etc.. etc., For what it's worth, though I certainly think your beliefs are "'irrational, insane, mad', etc.. etc., I personally hold you to be reasonably smart guy, A reasonably smart guy who, hopefully, may someday 'get it' before its too late.bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Moreover, if you continue your angry attacks against me personally, It is not a threat, but a promise that I will take it up with admin. Oooo, I'm really scared now. You have always been terribly dismissive and rude about anyone's belief which disagrees with your own. Always. You have always portrayed such beliefs as less than rational, to put it mildly. And yet you threaten me with sanctions for using the same tactics you have done in the past. For shame. In all the years I have been participating in this site I have never, ever seen you admit to making a mistake or conceding that even part of your views were incorrect. I have admitted that I was wrong earlier on this very thread. Is there any point, at all, in trying to have a dialogue with you in the future? Is there any possible scenario when you might concede even a minor point of your beliefs? I don't want to waste your time or my time if you are never, ever even going to consider that you might need to adjust your views.JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

JVL, to be clear, I have never personally called you insane, mad or stupid. I have called your beliefs insane, mad, or stupid. I believe you have taken offense to this quote that I have often cited,
It’s Really Not Rocket Science - Granville Sewell "It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.” ,,, Max Planck biologist W.E. Loennig once commented that Darwinism was a sort of “mass psychosis” — then he asked me, is that the right English word? I knew psychosis was some kind of mental illness, but wasn’t sure exactly what it was, so I looked it up in my dictionary when I returned home: “psychosis — a loss of contact with reality.” I wrote him that, yes, that was the right word. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/
Note that it is the belief that life can possibly be an accident, not any particular person, that is being called insane. Moreover, if you continue your angry attacks against me personally, It is not a threat, but a promise that I will take it up with admin.bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

JVL at 285, I've got a picture of my great, great, etc. grandfather as an amoeba-like creature.relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

JVL at 284, You need a new hobby. Seriously.relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Relatd: If you look at a common, but now falsified, ‘evolutionary tree,’ humans were once lemur-like creatures. And before that… Since you clearly are unable to answer simple questions I'll just stop talking to you on this particular topic.JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Well JVL, so you issued an ad hominem attack on me and called me a coward simply because I refused to play your silly game and admit to an obviously true point on classification? Thank you for admitting that humans do match the morphological definition of primate. And since you have become increasing abusive and angry towards me recently, do you think I ought to have admin settle the matter for us JVL? Or do you think I ought to let you continue with your ad hominem attacks against me? Seeing that we are humans, not apes, we do have rules of behavior you know. You can try. But then the admins would have to admit to a severe double standard since they have frequently in the past let descriptions of me as being insane or mad or stupid or much much worse pass without comment. Also, if you want to go down that route then you'd have to curb your own tendency for name calling. Please try to be better in your dialogue with me. You have been given fair warning. Are you threatening me? With what authority?JVL_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

As a moderator on another forum, I sometimes think I'm dealing with a playground full of 5 year olds. But, I do know that these are grown men who can sometimes behave like 5 year olds.relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

JVL at 280, If you look at a common, but now falsified, 'evolutionary tree,' humans were once lemur-like creatures. And before that...relatd_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply