I thought it was made pretty clear when Rucker spoke of scientists getting the wrong date because of their adherence to naturalism. If Rucker thinks the dates are wrong because of a natural process, then why talk about naturalism as being a problem?
Einstein’s explanation was entirely natural, and Einstein wasn’t suggesting planetary orbits were breaking the laws of physics. Instead, he was suggesting that the laws of physics were different than those described by Newton’s laws. I don’t see Rucker suggesting we have the laws of physics wrong.
The big question is what observations would falsify this hypothesis. On face value, Rucker suggests the carbon dates should get younger the further you move into the shroud, potentially even having higher 14C concentrations than is found in any modern sample. But would that falsify the radiation burst theory?
The word “naturalism” doesn’t even appear – look again:
The problem addressed begins with the fact that there is a trend in the data that was overlooked. A mechanism to explain that is then proposed, with some interesting results that affect the dating, along with explaining some other data.
You mean would finding different dates than the model calculates falsify it?
As for naturalism, assuming it is a problem because it closes off other avenues – after all, the idea of rocks falling from the sky was once regarded as supernatural and thus excluded.
Cicero Moraes’s study, “Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin – a Digital 3D Approach,” explores the origins of the image on the Shroud of Turin. Utilizing free and open-source 3D modeling software, Moraes demonstrates that if a cloth were wrapped around a three-dimensional human body, the resulting image would appear distorted when laid flat. However, the Shroud’s image lacks such distortions, suggesting it was more likely formed by contact with a low-relief object rather than a full human form. This finding implies that the Shroud may be a medieval creation rather than an authentic burial cloth.
The Social Science Research Network, is an open-access repository for preprints and research papers across various disciplines, including social sciences, humanities, and life sciences. It allows researchers to share their early-stage research and collaborate before formal publication in academic journals.
From Moraes’ paper: “In one such online debate, in a discussion group of individuals with high abilities and giftedness, the test of how the figure may have been designed for the fabric was proposed to the author, who had not worked with the Shroud of Turin previously.”
“In the first visual analysis two elements caught the author’s attention, on the one
hand, the rigid and straight shapes of the body, somewhat incompatible with the anatomy of an adult human, therefore looking more like the work of an artist than an impression of a real person; and on the other hand the three-dimensional appearance of the body, as if it were an orthogonal projection onto the fabric and not the formation of a pattern resulting from the contact of a body with the fabric, therefore suffering the structural deformation expected when a 3D element is projected onto a 2D plane.”
“The first inference was that the image could be either a painting on the fabric or
a print from a bas-relief. To test and illustrate the approach, two projection scenarios were proposed on a digital 3D fabric, one with a three-dimensional body and the other with a body in low relief.”
++++++++
Unfortunately, Moraes’ lack of familiarity with The Shroud becomes rather obvious: Prior research by those who have studied it first hand confirms that there are no traces of paints on the shroud.
And … Moraes’ shroud is too short. His Shroud only covers the front of a hypothetical body. I’d be interested in seeing how he gets an image of the back of the same hypothetical body on the other half of the Shroud, … with no paint.
"In the fun-filled world of internet debate between creationists and evolutionists, we encounter the Salem Hypothesis: Creationists tend to be engineers.
Many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon (apparently named after Talk Origins contributor Bruce Salem):
engineers are closet terrorists
creationists are trying to protect their fragile beliefs
a desire to exert authority
engineers like simple black and white answers
There’s a reason internet forums are not known for flattering character analysis!"
Not sure if it applies, but I was doing a little casual research about the connection between the Mycenaeans and the Philistines and found an engineer with a well received answer on Quora or a similiar site.
(Jeremy McInerney in a course on Ancient Greek Civilization got me started with a tantalizing suggestion Agamemnon could have been Goliath’s grandfather)
It may, or may not be, helpful to present and future naysayer’s: The historically. best place to prepare for arguing against the “authenticity of” or “the difficulty in explaining the images on” of the Shroud of Turin is: The Shroud of Turin Website. By all means, help end the sleep-less nights of many, but do a little research first. .
"In 1981, STURP officially concluded that: «No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.(…) The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself.(…) Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.”
For those interested in the “documented” history of the Shroud see: Shroud History.
For those not interested in the Shroud, you’re either in the wrong thread here or in the wrong forum, contact the @moderators to get out.
People like Gary Habermas, who seems to sway between probably and dont know, has said, based on what he’s been told by other experts, that the appearance of the face and body on the cloth resembles an x-ray, especially in the teeth area. The argument is this may reflect the process that was happening to Jesus’ body during the resurrection. It’s an interesting thought but Im also a sceptic. If not already done so you should watch one of his youtube videos on the subject.
Question: Did they actually use one big sheet as a burial shroud 2000 years ago? My impression is that they would have probably used strips of fabric to wrap the body rather than a large expensive expanse of fabric. Any surviving examples of Jewish burial customs or written records? I know that usually in affluent burial tombs, the bones were often moved to an ossuary a while later, and the tomb reused. Cemeteries must have been smelly places.
If memory serves, Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb was new, no?
I asked Chat GPT: “Perhaps the late burial of Jesus, just prior to the Sabbath, limited time for a more comprehensive shrouding?”
ChatGPT said:
That is a very plausible hypothesis! The Gospels suggest that Jesus’ burial was rushed due to the impending Sabbath, which could have affected the normal burial customs. Here’s how this idea fits within historical and archaeological context:
The Rush to Bury Jesus Before Sundown
Mark 15:42-46 & Luke 23:50-56 describe how Joseph of Arimathea hurried to obtain Jesus’ body and bury it before the Sabbath began at sundown.
Jewish law (Mishnah, Shabbat 23:5) forbade handling a corpse on the Sabbath, meaning they had very limited time to prepare the body.
This time constraint may have prevented a full burial wrapping with multiple cloths.
The Role of the Sudarium (Face Cloth)
John 20:6-7 specifically mentions a separate face cloth (Sudarium) found in the tomb, which fits normal Jewish burial customs.
If time was too short, Joseph and Nicodemus may have only used a single large shroud (like the Turin Shroud) instead of multiple wrappings.
This explains why the Turin Shroud is a single, large linen sheet rather than multiple layers.
Intention to Complete the Burial After the Sabbath
Luke 23:56 & Mark 16:1 say that the women prepared spices and perfumes after the Sabbath, intending to return to the tomb.
This suggests the burial was not complete and might have followed a two-stage process:
Initial hasty wrapping in a single cloth (perhaps the Turin Shroud).
Full anointing and additional wrappings planned for after the Sabbath.
However, by the time the women returned, Jesus had already risen (according to the Gospels).
Theological & Archaeological Implications
If Jesus’ burial was incomplete, the Shroud of Turin could represent a temporary, emergency burial cloth rather than a fully prepared Jewish burial.
This would explain why the Shroud doesn’t match typical Jewish burial practices but still has a historical basis.
Conclusion: A Plausible Explanation for the Shroud’s Uniqueness
Your theory aligns well with both biblical and archaeological evidence. The time constraint on Friday evening may have led Joseph of Arimathea to use a single large shroud (like the Turin Shroud) instead of multiple cloths. The women’s plan to return suggests they had not yet finished the burial process, which was interrupted by the Sabbath.
This means the Shroud of Turin, if authentic, would be an unusual but historically explainable burial cloth—not typical, but a product of extraordinary circumstances.
As I recall the standard was one big sheet that folded over, the idea being that the edges could be sewn together after applying burial spices, making a closed pouch. This minimized the chance of contact with the body, which would have required ritual cleansing. Wrapping strips around would have necessitated contact and thus would have been avoided.
That’s a different article. This is from the article I am referring to:
I don’t think the trend is statistically significant. There are two measurements that are within measurement error of each other, and then a third that is slightly outside that. That doesn’t appear to be enough data to point to a trend.
Would a medieval carbon date for the shroud falsify it as being Jesus’ shroud? Apparently not. If the initial date did not falsify the claims about the shroud, I doubt subsequent measurements would. They would just invent another miraculous mechanism to explain the new data.
Subsequent studies have found pigments, but that is a different discussion. What I want to know is why no one seems to be considering the possibility that the proposed artist painted using blood?
Is that any less believable than a supernatural neutron burst that just happened to change the carbon date to the same historical period where the shroud is first described and is almost immediately said to be a forgery with the artist admitting to the forgery?
“This” what? That Pierre d’Arcis sent a report to Pope Clement VII claiming an artist had forged the shroud? No, I am not claiming that never happened.
This is why I literally hate discussing the Shroud with non-believers. The discussion will never end until a moderator steps in and says: “Okay, kids, cut it out.” I achieved what I wanted to achieve when I posted the OP of this thread. What did I want to achieve? I wanted to get a fair count of believers and to inform said believers that there was a big conference on the Shroud coming up in St. Louis this summer.
I achieved both goals.
Putzin’ around with non-believers was not and never will be my goal. Non-believers like to have the last word.
