But the pundits don't like the name, therefore every dollar invested in the entire project was wasted. As we all know, the only opinion that matters is the nasal-voiced water-cooler-guy wearing loafers and his corporate identification card. They will continue to harp on the choice of name day after day after day until it drains every last molecule of joy from the very sunlight in the air.
I could easily state that if someone claims to witness a miracle they are refusing to admit their lack of understanding of an otherwise explainable event.
Thanks, you just proved my point. If a miracle were broadcast on live television from Time Square on New Year's Eve: something which could never be explained scientifically, like for example, a flagrant, measurable, obvious violation of the laws of thermodynamics by the exercise of will of one human being (an absolute scientific impossibility), there are people who would still put their hands over their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA."
This is nothing new.
"Encode" is an active verb.
Ok. Perhaps then it could be said that three-dimensional information was lost somewhere in the vicinity of the Shroud of Turin and later discovered by a 19th century photographer. Happy?
I sincerely doubt that those documenters of miracles are open to other natural explanations that don't mesh with the miracle idea.
Again, someone without faith, presented with a miracle for which there is no non-supernatural explanation, might (and often does) still refuse to believe it was a miracle. This isn't new, by the way. There are numerous accounts of people who personally witnessed miracles that refused to believe their origin. Faith is a matter of the heart, not a matter of science. That isn't new either.
Stating that this in 'encoded' implies belief that this is an intentional effect
No it doesn't. Well, it doesn't unless you want to use it as a basis for attempting to refute a claim that was never made.
Oh, there's a great deal more to say. Where is the scientific evaluation? What PhDs examined the experiment and its results? What scientific journals published the findings? What other research teams have reproduced this work? What journalists covered the experiment? Why isn't there a USA Today article? Time article? Scientific American article? Newsweek Article? One major metropolitan newspaper? University? Anything?
I find your skepticism for all things big business particularly ironic
These texts are supposed to be definitive. No room for interpretation.
Why not study the Bible before making wild unfounded assumptions and blatant unsupported conjecture about it? If you're so concerned with scientific integrity, how about spending a few minutes at least trying to understand something before drawing an inaccurate conclusion?
They have reproduced it. They used a carved statue(3d), wrapped a shroud around it, and heated it.
Where? When? What newspaper was it reported in? Which scientific journals? Where is the scientific article explaining the experiment? Who interpreted the results? Who tested the results? Why wasn't the experiment and its results on the front page of every newspaper like the shroud itself has been? Where was the 72-point headline "SHROUD OF TURIN PROVEN A HOAX?"
Did the reproduction have a photographic negative? Did it have emergent three-dimensional information? What was the spectrum analysis? How did they get the image onto the cloth without damaging the cloth itself? Did it affect the carbon dating? Did the physical impossibility of reproducing a two-dimensional image accurately from a three-dimensional source affect the appearance of the image?
Um, that isn't a fact. It is a highly dubious opinion.
It is a fact, and it has been verified by every scientific examination of the shroud for nearly 50 years. There is three-dimensional information encoded in that two-dimensional image. We do not, nor have we ever had the technology to produce a two-dimensional image upon an artificial surface which contains emergent three-dimensional topographical information. And no, it wasn't painted either, for the same reason that two dimensional maps of the Earth aren't accurate at certain latitudes. Sorry. The technology doesn't exist.
We very much do have the technology to create such 3d images, and can replicate the level of 3d detail in the shroud easily using techniques which were common in the 12th century.
If it were so easy to produce such an image artificially, why has nobody done it? They've had over 100 years.
Fair enough. What qualifies as proof? There were hundreds of people throughout millenia of history that personally witnessed miracles and still refused to believe them.
Biology can not explain 'Blind Faith', which is what religion is based upon.
Now that's scientific!
Without Blind Faith religion would have no following because nobody has seen anything to make them believe in anything.
There have been thousands, possibly millions of documented miracles. If a miracle were broadcast from Time Square on New Year's Eve with irrefutable scientific proof that it could not possibly have occurred without a supernatural explanation, people would still refuse to believe in it. Now, you were saying something about "blind faith?"
To me the overwhelming evidence and proof positive that evolution in fact did take place is much clearer
Evolution and creation are not exclusive. The book of Genesis, read as an allegory, is almost perfectly consistent with our current understanding of the origin of the universe.
What facts disprove that?
Did you know that the Shroud of Turin is encoded with three-dimensional information? A topographical relief camera, using only the shroud itself as data, can produce a three-dimensional image of a man's face. We don't have the technology to produce such an image artificially today, much less centuries ago when scientists claim the shroud was made.
A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind.
Yes. The concise definition is "obstacle." These are people who find their way into positions of control and make it their sole purpose to frustrate progress or passively sabotage anything that appears likely to succeed. They are anathema, and one of, if not the main reason, for all failure. They are hateful people, and should be driven from all discourse immediately to prevent the suffering they inflict on society, and to encourage them to offer something constructive for a change.
Slashdot Mirror
But the pundits don't like the name, therefore every dollar invested in the entire project was wasted. As we all know, the only opinion that matters is the nasal-voiced water-cooler-guy wearing loafers and his corporate identification card. They will continue to harp on the choice of name day after day after day until it drains every last molecule of joy from the very sunlight in the air.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
producing ethanol from corn is highly inefficient and consumes 1 unit of energy for each 1.3 units of energy that burning ethanol provides
So what? Should we attempt to invent technology that produces energy and consumes none? Wouldn't that contradict nearly every law of thermodynamics?
Sounds like "it'll never work" speak, which is the greatest asset of the status quo, anti-competitive and anti-free-market.
I could easily state that if someone claims to witness a miracle they are refusing to admit their lack of understanding of an otherwise explainable event.
Thanks, you just proved my point. If a miracle were broadcast on live television from Time Square on New Year's Eve: something which could never be explained scientifically, like for example, a flagrant, measurable, obvious violation of the laws of thermodynamics by the exercise of will of one human being (an absolute scientific impossibility), there are people who would still put their hands over their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA."
This is nothing new.
"Encode" is an active verb.
Ok. Perhaps then it could be said that three-dimensional information was lost somewhere in the vicinity of the Shroud of Turin and later discovered by a 19th century photographer. Happy?
care all that much about it or think that it's truth is so proven that disproving it would be news
It was on the cover of Time Magazine, genius.
Scientists were wrong??
God's going to be so disappointed.
I blame the Martians.
perfect instruction of righteousness
Sorry, I missed the phrase "perfect instruction of righteousness" in the quote.
Love is a measurable biochemical process.
Really? Well that's good to know. Thanks for solving a mystery that has persisted for eons.
What it is is a bald face lie told by people who should not be knowingly lying to protect their religion.
Please construct a working honeybee.
I sincerely doubt that those documenters of miracles are open to other natural explanations that don't mesh with the miracle idea.
Again, someone without faith, presented with a miracle for which there is no non-supernatural explanation, might (and often does) still refuse to believe it was a miracle. This isn't new, by the way. There are numerous accounts of people who personally witnessed miracles that refused to believe their origin. Faith is a matter of the heart, not a matter of science. That isn't new either.
Stating that this in 'encoded' implies belief that this is an intentional effect
No it doesn't. Well, it doesn't unless you want to use it as a basis for attempting to refute a claim that was never made.
Point made.
Not much more to say.
Oh, there's a great deal more to say. Where is the scientific evaluation? What PhDs examined the experiment and its results? What scientific journals published the findings? What other research teams have reproduced this work? What journalists covered the experiment? Why isn't there a USA Today article? Time article? Scientific American article? Newsweek Article? One major metropolitan newspaper? University? Anything?
I find your skepticism for all things big business particularly ironic
It's not skepticism when you have proof.
These texts are supposed to be definitive. No room for interpretation.
Why not study the Bible before making wild unfounded assumptions and blatant unsupported conjecture about it? If you're so concerned with scientific integrity, how about spending a few minutes at least trying to understand something before drawing an inaccurate conclusion?
They have reproduced it. They used a carved statue(3d), wrapped a shroud around it, and heated it.
Where? When? What newspaper was it reported in? Which scientific journals? Where is the scientific article explaining the experiment? Who interpreted the results? Who tested the results? Why wasn't the experiment and its results on the front page of every newspaper like the shroud itself has been? Where was the 72-point headline "SHROUD OF TURIN PROVEN A HOAX?"
Did the reproduction have a photographic negative? Did it have emergent three-dimensional information? What was the spectrum analysis? How did they get the image onto the cloth without damaging the cloth itself? Did it affect the carbon dating? Did the physical impossibility of reproducing a two-dimensional image accurately from a three-dimensional source affect the appearance of the image?
First define "love", then we can decide if it exists or not. Until then its just a mouth noise.
Well, you just swerved into the idiot zone, but we have some lovely parting gifts. Tell 'em what they've won, Bob!
NEXT!
a religious point of view that holds a book written thousands of years ago as being more correct than one's own eyes
Please cite which passages in the Bible are inconsistent with evolution?
While you're at it, please build a working honeybee.
Thanks.
Notice that anyone who questions the absolute truth according to science is modded down?
Nothing like shouting down the dissent in order to arrive at the truth.
Which makes it completely useless in the realm of science, or anything else having to do with reality for that matter.
So the human heart is unreal? Interesting hypothesis. So scientists would state, with certainty, that love doesn't exist?
Hardly in the same league as science on ANY level.
God created scientists too.
-1 Troll: WAAAAAAAH WE DON'T AGREE
Looks like scientists are shouting down people who disagree with them. Galileo and Einstein would be proud. More mod points wasted. Yawn.
Care to name a few that have no possible scientific explanation whatsoever, however unlikely?
I have a better question, since this is a blatant troll. Name some common miracles and their scientific explanations.
What you're describing is impossible by definition.
Thanks. You just proved my point. See? Proof isn't that difficult.
Um, that isn't a fact. It is a highly dubious opinion.
It is a fact, and it has been verified by every scientific examination of the shroud for nearly 50 years. There is three-dimensional information encoded in that two-dimensional image. We do not, nor have we ever had the technology to produce a two-dimensional image upon an artificial surface which contains emergent three-dimensional topographical information. And no, it wasn't painted either, for the same reason that two dimensional maps of the Earth aren't accurate at certain latitudes. Sorry. The technology doesn't exist.
We very much do have the technology to create such 3d images, and can replicate the level of 3d detail in the shroud easily using techniques which were common in the 12th century.
If it were so easy to produce such an image artificially, why has nobody done it? They've had over 100 years.
The Bible is not a scientific journal and cannot considered a legitimate source of observational data.
That statement is unscientific. Ironic.
went to college = 4 year vacation
Wow, now that's a ringing endorsement of the scientific method. Please tell us all about Darwin's theories.
Fair enough. What qualifies as proof? There were hundreds of people throughout millenia of history that personally witnessed miracles and still refused to believe them.
Faith is a matter of the heart, not the mind.
Biology can not explain 'Blind Faith', which is what religion is based upon.
Now that's scientific!
Without Blind Faith religion would have no following because nobody has seen anything to make them believe in anything.
There have been thousands, possibly millions of documented miracles. If a miracle were broadcast from Time Square on New Year's Eve with irrefutable scientific proof that it could not possibly have occurred without a supernatural explanation, people would still refuse to believe in it. Now, you were saying something about "blind faith?"
To me the overwhelming evidence and proof positive that evolution in fact did take place is much clearer
Evolution and creation are not exclusive. The book of Genesis, read as an allegory, is almost perfectly consistent with our current understanding of the origin of the universe.
What facts disprove that?
Did you know that the Shroud of Turin is encoded with three-dimensional information? A topographical relief camera, using only the shroud itself as data, can produce a three-dimensional image of a man's face. We don't have the technology to produce such an image artificially today, much less centuries ago when scientists claim the shroud was made.
There's a fact for you. Enjoy!
A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind.
Yes. The concise definition is "obstacle." These are people who find their way into positions of control and make it their sole purpose to frustrate progress or passively sabotage anything that appears likely to succeed. They are anathema, and one of, if not the main reason, for all failure. They are hateful people, and should be driven from all discourse immediately to prevent the suffering they inflict on society, and to encourage them to offer something constructive for a change.