MF Runs Away; Anyone Else Care to Play?

_{Barry Arrington
April 11, 2015

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Mark Frank apparently no longer wants to play. So I will throw the question I asked him open to any of the other materialists who post here.

Imagine the following exchange:

Barry:

Mr. Materialist, is it possible to imagine a universe in which torturing an infant to death for personal pleasure is actually an affirmatively good thing?

Mr. Materialist:

The answer to your question is that my metaphysics compel me to say that the phrase “affirmatively good thing” is all but meaningless in the sense you are using it. There is no such thing as “good.” There is no such thing as “evil.” There is only my personal preferences competing with everyone else’s personal preferences, and all of those personal preferences can be reduced to the impulses caused by the electro-chemical processes of each person’s brain.

Certainly there is no external standard by which we can discern whether the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in my brain are in any sense morally superior to the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in anyone else’s brain.

It follows, Barry, that if by the word “good” you mean the desirable and by the desirable you mean that which a person actually desires, then of course I can imagine a universe in which torturing an infant to death for personal pleasure is actually an affirmatively good thing. In fact, we live in just such a universe. How do I know? Because certain people have in fact desired to torture an infant to death for personal pleasure.

On the other hand, if by “good” you mean “conforms to an external moral standard,” the question is, as I said, meaningless, because no such standard exists.

End of exchange.

Materialists, it is up to you to tell me how any of the conclusions I’ve reached are not in fact compelled by materialist premises.

WJM is correct. Very very few people actually live as if materialist metaphysics were actually true. And those people who do we call psychopaths.

Comments

Comments on this thread are closed. Comments on the topic should be placed on the new "RDFish is an Idiot" thread.Barry Arrington_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Seversky, I would not know right from wrong if God did not tell me. Or more precisely, if God did not create. Right was created first along with free will. Then wrong came along. Knowing right and wrong is knowing God. God told you too btw. How else would you know:)ppolish_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

StephenB @
Seversky
If we have to decide between the subjective moral beliefs of the torturer and the subjective moral beliefs of the victim what other test can you apply than that of the lesser of two evils?
…except for the fact that the subjectivist has no way of determining which moral evil is greater than another or if there is even any such thing as a moral evil in the first place.
Yes, we can, by the Golden Rule if nothing else. I know that while being prevented from doing something I like would be frustrating, being tortured and killed would be a lot worse. I assume it would be the same for any other victim of torture so, yes, I have a means of deciding which is the worse option. I assume the same would be true for you and everyone else here. Or, as I've asked many times before, are you really saying you would have no way of deciding what is right or wrong if God had not told you?Seversky_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Andre: "Lack of focus You are welcome to not post here if it’s too much for you." Andre, I wasn't passing a judgment, merely stating a fact. If a moderator is seen to frequently use name-calling, other commenters will think that this is tolerated, if not condoned.lack of Focus_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

SB: What do you mean by “a normal moral sense?” RDFish
In the same sense that I said “a normal color sense”. Do you not understand what that is?
I understand what it is, but I am not persuaded that you do. Do the elements that are perceived relate to an objective reality that can be apprehended by a person with a normal sense of color and morality? Or is normalcy defined by "intersubjective agreement" (i.e. if 51% to 99% of the people agree that torture is wrong, then torture is wrong). Intersubjective agreement is just another term for majority opinion. If the majority agrees that slavery is morally acceptable, is that consistent with a "normal moral sense?" If the majority later declares that slavery is evil, is that also consistent with a normal moral sense? Both positions were arrived at by intersubjective agreement. Which one, in your judgment, is normal? SB: What do you mean by evil?
Just what you mean (morally wrong or bad, immoral, wicked, harmful, injurious, etc). We disagree about whether (a) we have an innate sense of morality akin to our innate sense of color, or (b) some god tells us is moral and what isn’t.
That begs the question. What is immorality? What is wickedness? What is it about injury or harm that makes it evil? How does evil relate to the good? Is metaphysical evil a privation of an objective good? Is personal evil a perversion of the will? If evil is not those two things, then what is it? You continue to use words that you don't define and appear not to understand. Also, you are also quite wrong to think that God's commandments are alien to or separate from our inate sense of right and wrong. It isn't an either or proposition.
1) Unless you explain how a proposition can be objectively grounded, you are left with only inter-subjective agreement upon which to ground our common beliefs, including our moral beliefs. Can you explain how a proposition can be objectively grounded? I think you can’t.
I can easily explain how objective morality is grounded. It is grounded in our human nature and what is best for it. However, you cannot explain how intersubjective agreement can establish a normal moral sense. Would you care to try?
Can you show why you accept a “normal color sense” but not an analogous “normal moral sense”? I think you can’t.
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. I agree that we have an inate moral sense, but it is not akin to our inate sense of color. That is a materialist assumption. The moral sense is not physical and comes through the intellect, while the sense of color is, in part, physical and comes through the senses. The moral sense involves concepts and judgments, the sense of color does not. They are not similar enough to compare. I don't care to discuss the subject of color. It is irrelevant. Why not just answer the challenge and explain why you think that Barry's conclusions do not follow from materialist premises, because they clearly do. It has nothing to do with our perception of color, or intersubjectivity, or any distinction between metaphysics and morality, or any determination of how objectivity can be confirmed. Those are all distractions calculated to avoid the argument, and you are clearly avoiding it.StephenB_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

RDFish So do you hold the moral high ground now or will you finally acknowledge that in a material world good and evil are meaningless?Andre_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Lack of focus You are welcome to not post here if it's too much for you.Andre_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

The tone and behaviour of any blog is only as good as the tone and behaviour of the moderator.lack of Focus_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

RDFish, did you even bother to read the second sentence of the OP?
Barry: So I will throw the question I asked him open to any of the other materialists who post here.
If you did, how can you term the following quote a "strawman"?
Barry: It seems obvious that Red Fish believes the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in his brain are in fact objectively and self-evidently morally superior to the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in those who torture puppies.
Box_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry,
You are a fool, an arrogant and tiresome one at that, which is a very toxic combination...Any ten year-old would know you are an idiot...It is exasperating that you are so dense and so arrogant about your denseness.
You have nothing but invective, Barry. No arguments, no clarifications, and no understanding. No wonder Mark Frank has given up talking to you.
It seems obvious that Red Fish believes the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in his brain are in fact objectively and self-evidently morally superior to the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in those who torture puppies.
Since I argued explicitly against objectivism, this strawman of yours reveals you are incapable of understanding the first thing about the issues here. Can you address a single aspect of my argument? Of course you can't. Hence your schoolyard insults, born of the frustration of a man who is manifestly terrified because he cannot rationalize his faith. I leave you to stew in your fear and anger, Barry. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Let us subject Red Fish’s analysis to the same analysis that I have already used with Serversky and Mahuna: Now, in the OP I challenged the Red Fish of the world to answer the following logic. The materialist premises compel him to say:
There is no such thing as “good.” There is no such thing as “evil.” There is only my personal preferences competing with everyone else’s personal preferences, and all of those personal preferences can be reduced to the impulses caused by the electro-chemical processes of each person’s brain. Certainly there is no external standard by which we can discern whether the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in my brain are in any sense morally superior to the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in anyone else’s brain.
It seems obvious that Red Fish believes the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in his brain are in fact objectively and self-evidently morally superior to the personal preferences resulting from the electro-chemical processes in those who torture puppies. Do tell. Why is that? You have no answer. Otherwise you would have provided it.Barry Arrington_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

RDFish @ 32 and 33. You use the following words: "morally wrong or bad, immoral, wicked, harmful, injurious" When are you materialists going to understand that you don't get to use those words in any sense other than "things I do not personally prefer." Again, you demonstrate that no one actually lives (or speaks) as if materialism were true. It is exasperating that you are so dense and so arrogant about your denseness.Barry Arrington_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Graham2 the dogmatic atheist at 30 and JWTruthInLove the Jehovah's Witness at 31 state:
"I didn’t read your stuff (who does?) but did you cover the shroud of Turin ?" and "It did. How did you know? It even covered an on-topic topic: torturing of people in hell. I bet if one can imagine hell one can imagine “a universe in which torturing an infant to death for personal pleasure is actually an affirmatively good thing”."
Besides presenting evidence for the physical, objective, reality of morality, I also presented empirical evidence for both the authenticity of the Shroud and the physical reality of a timeless, infinitely destructive, eternity, i.e. a 'hell'. It is interesting that the response from both the dogmatic atheist and the Jehovah's Witness, (strange bedfellows indeed), was not a responce of any empirical evidence countering the empirical evidence that I presented, but was one of a sneering dismissal of both claims based on the personal opinions of both the dogmatic atheist and the Jehovah's Witness. But in science personal opinions are a dime a dozen and empirical evidence is suppose to have the final say, so why do these two think their sneering dismissals, based on personal opinion, count as valid refutations? If a disagreement is not settled by reference to empirical evidence, then you are not doing science but are merely seeing who, by rhetorical ploys, can make their opinion seem more reasonable. I hold that whoever relies primarily on rhetoric to try to make his case for his position is not really interested in the truth of the matter but is merely interested in maintaining his personal philosophical bias regardless of what the actual truth of the situation might be.
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Verse and Music:
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. More Than You Think I Am - Danny Gokey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su5DG8pQMB8
bornagain77_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

#41 Jerad, From the Comment Policy: No swearing. Try to be polite. Try to be tolerant. Try to keep belligerence and sarcasm in check. No one is perfect. We’ll try to be forgiving.Piotr_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Box, Piotr, JWTruthInLove I'm not afraid of Barry's comments, I'd just like a clarification on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. I'd like to assume that the criteria are applied uniformly. But you all are suggesting that is not the case.Jerad_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

@Jerad & RDF: Barry-samas behaviour is well known. And the solution is pretty simple. I've already mentioned it in one of kf-kun's threads: If you don't want to be bullied by Barry-sama, ignore his threads!JWTruthInLove_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

#37 Box, Yes, Barry is the master of this sandbox and that gives him a right to spit at other kids and break their shovels and buckets if they piss him off.Piotr_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Box #37 Barry’s statement is an accurate description of reality If I dispute that would it be appropriate then to label me an idiot as well?Jerad_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Jerad, there are two inequalities between you making this kind of statement and Barry. First, Barry's statement is an accurate description of reality and last but not least Barry is the owner of this website.Box_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus, Would you let me get away with this kind of statement? SB destroyed your argument in 9 words. You are a fool, an arrogant and tiresome one at that, which is a very toxic combination. You think you are so smart and sophisticated. Any ten year-old would know you are an idiot.Jerad_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

Box, I'd suggest Rosenberg declares too much; but in so doing sets up the proverbial target-rich environment. Evolutionary materialism is an ideology imposed on science, education and society alike, dressed up in a lab coat. It is self-referentially incoherent on the reality of responsible freedom and inextricably linked rationally contemplative mind. AND, it lacks evidence, indeed due to that inescapable incoherence, undermines the very reality of evidence. As we saw in a recent thread or two. So, we have very good reason to object to, correct and expose a widespread, pernicious error. KFkairosfocus_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Rdfish Normal colour sense is deducible to chemicals. Are moral senses deducible to chemicals? That is an extraordinary claim.Andre_{April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry,
bla bla bla bla. SB destroyed your argument in 9 words. You are a fool, an arrogant and tiresome one at that, which is a very toxic combination. You think you are so smart and sophisticated. Any ten year-old would know you are an idiot.
I will cherish this illuminating response, thank you. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
What do you mean by “a normal moral sense?”
In the same sense that I said "a normal color sense". Do you not understand what that is? Do you think that color sense is relative - that if somebody reported the sky is green and the grass is blue then that would be normal too? I think you wouldn't, just as you wouldn't think that one who believed puppy torture was good would be normal (and neither do I).
What do you mean by evil?
Just what you mean (morally wrong or bad, immoral, wicked, harmful, injurious, etc). We disagree about whether (a) we have an innate sense of morality akin to our innate sense of color, or (b) some god tells us is moral and what isn't. Take a few minutes and read what I've written and just try to respond to what I've said. I respond to each point you make, but you ignore what I say. This makes it appear that you have no response to the particular arguments I've put forward. Here it is again, and I've made it simpler for you to respond. Just two points: 1) Unless you explain how a proposition can be objectively grounded, you are left with only inter-subjective agreement upon which to ground our common beliefs, including our moral beliefs. Can you explain how a proposition can be objectively grounded? I think you can't. 2) All reasonable people with a normal color sense agree that the sky is blue. All reasonable people with a normal moral sense agree that puppy torture is evil. If you ask me why I know that sky is blue, I will tell you that I can’t prove it, I only perceive it. Likewise if you ask me why puppy torture is wrong. Can you show why you accept a "normal color sense" but not an analogous "normal moral sense"? I think you can't. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

@Graham2:
BA77: I didn’t read your stuff (who does?) but did you cover the shroud of Turin ?
It did. How did you know? It even covered an on-topic topic: torturing of people in hell. I bet if one can imagine hell one can imagine "a universe in which torturing an infant to death for personal pleasure is actually an affirmatively good thing".JWTruthInLove_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

BA77: I didn't read your stuff (who does?) but did you cover the shroud of Turin ?Graham2_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

RDFish @ 23. bla bla bla bla. SB destroyed your argument in 9 words. You are a fool, an arrogant and tiresome one at that, which is a very toxic combination. You think you are so smart and sophisticated. Any ten year-old would know you are an idiot.Barry Arrington_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

Hi RDFish
All reasonable people with a normal moral sense agree that puppy torture is evil.
What do you mean by "a normal moral sense?" What do you mean by evil?StephenB_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell: Verses, Propitiation (i.e Grace), and Music
John 8:23-24 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins. G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) – poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 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. Evanescence – The Other Side (Music-Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch
bornagain77_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

And to repeat, the 'observational' evidence from Near Death Experiences is far more robust that the 'observational' evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution is:
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html 'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/ A Doctor's Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life - video Quote: "It's not like a dream. It's like the world we are living in is a dream and it's kind of like waking up from that." Dr. Magrisso http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html
In light of this dilemma that these two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity (i.e. Quantum Electro-Dynamics),,, string theory, M-theory, etc.. ,,in light of that dilemma, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation The Center Of The Universe Is Life (Jesus) - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:
The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete 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/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 “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. 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. 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.” Kevin Moran – optical engineer 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
bornagain77_{April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next