![]() ![]() ![]() ) And even if he did, why would that radiation leave a neat, clean image on the Shroud? Wouldn’t it have instead emanated from every part of his body in all directions (not just at straight angles directly in front and in back of him) and just burned the entire cloth? And why do we not find references to it prior to the 13th century? If the early Christians had such proof of Jesus resurrection, wouldn’t they have been showing it to everyone? A good explanation should increase our understanding, not decrease it, and invoking “unknown mysterious processes” as explanations just replaces the unexplained with the inexplicable. Date: MaDan John Chen has done some great, new 3D modeling of the Shroud of Turin face. How exactly was the image created? Some say Jesus emitted radiation as he resurrected, but what was the source of that radiation? Why would resurrection create it? (Radiation destroys flesh, it does not reanimate it-and also can’t leave an image in cloth. The second (forgery) hypothesis also has wider scope because it leaves very few things unexplained (although we don’t know the name of the person who did it, we do know why, how, when, and where it would have been forged) whereas the first (resurrection) hypothesis leaves many questions unanswered. - Turin Shroud - 3D model by Aberdeen City Libraries (AberdeenCityLibraries) Explore Buy 3D models. Indeed, it would be quite a coincidence if all the samples, and all the tests, all separately just happened to have exactly the same flaws. Agemian, an Armenian artist who became an American citizen, used the Shroud, as his ‘model’ using forensic imagery. ![]() The fact that both explanations are often espoused in the same breath makes it even more obvious that both are contrived attempts to save the original theory from the evidence that refutes it. Did they get the wrong result because they did a bad test on a clean sample, or because they did a good test on a contaminated sample? It can’t be both. In addition, the explanations they give-the cloth tested was from a medieval restoration, the dates were inaccurate because of faulty methods or contamination-are not only untestable (since the tests were already run on the samples in question, there was no way to go back and check whether those particular samples were contaminated or whether the tests were done improperly) they are contradictory. Of course, defenders of the Shroud rushed to explain away this evidence but this move was also unscientific as it is a clear example of an “ ad hoc excuse ”-a vain unfalsifiable attempt to save a theory from contrary evidence. The rare tests that were repeated, confirmed, and independent-like the carbon dating of the shroud-indicate that the Shroud is not authentic but instead dates to somewhere between 1260 - 1390 C.E. Drawing inspiration from the 3D model of the Shroud of Turin, one of historys most enigmatic and revered relics, the rendering offers a deeply evocative and. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |