C-14 dating as final arbiter

DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:02 pm There is a lot more to this story as well, as you’d expect. C-14 dating is no different from other sophisticated methods and requires properly working and calibrated equipment, properly trained operators, and critically … samples that are not contaminated and are prepared correctly.

This is precisely my point. So, the question is, should this also apply to the TS?

It appears to be a firm no, as evidenced by…

Diogenes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:43 pm Given that the test of the Shroud conclusively proved the artifact is from about 1300 CE, it seems pointless to continue the argument. It’s a fake.

Diogenes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:09 pm The age of the shroud has been conclusively dated as about only 700 years old, not 2000. End of story. It’s a fake.

Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:55 pm Anyway the C 14 dating seems to close the issue re: it being from Jesus, so I’ll wait for your new evidence or theory on that. As you concede, the C14 dating is [at least] a ‘conundrum;’ tho’ my imagination is insufficient to explain how an image made in the 1st Century gets onto fabric from the 14th…
[/size]

Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:55 pm The only thing raised by those that are already convinced it has to be Jesus’ shroud, is that the samples were not collected correctly and for the other silly stuff I outlined about smoke and mirrors, excuse me smoke and bacteria and other garbage theories.

What Diogenese is doing is claiming the C-14 is the final arbiter of the shroud. It doesn’t matter if all the other evidence points to its authenticity. It doesn’t matter if there are theories of contamination. It doesn’t matter if there are potential procedural problems. It doesn’t matter if specimens are not prepared correctly. They are all “silly stuff”, “smoke and mirrors”, and “garbage theories”. The C-14 result makes it “pointless to continue the argument”, “end of story”, “it’s a fake”, issue is “closed”.

So, I’m simply using his argument and showing the fallacy of it…

otseng wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:29 am OK, let’s run with the C-14 dating is correct and see what are the implications…

To me, a bigger concern might be the fact that so few TS samples were tested, and all from a single “patch” about 3″ x 1″ in size.

This is only one of a mountain of concerns. But, I will get to those later after I explore more the attitude of the C-14 being conclusive evidence.