So far, we have the evidence of the C-14 dating to demonstrate that it is a fake. It’s a necessary condition, but it’s not sufficient. You need to have additional evidence to prove it’s a fake. As I argued earlier, C-14 evidence by itself is not conclusive evidence of anything.
If it’s a fake, all we need is corroborating evidence like:
– paint was on the shroud (as claimed by McCrone)
– textual record of how he did it (like Da Vinci did with his works)
– apprentices who learned from this master (like many other artists had)
– prototypes of the shroud
– etc
However, this evidence is lacking. So, really the only evidence that skeptics can provide is the C-14 dating. And in order to bolster this solitary evidence, just put an exclamation mark on it, proclaim it loud, cross your arms, look convinced, and mock the other position.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1111305#p1111305
So, if anyone accepts C-14 as conclusive evidence against the mountain of evidence that supports the shroud, then one can use C-14 also to argue against deep time, even if there is a mountain of evidence to support deep time.
C-14 supporters claim the shroud is a fake. But, really the only other evidence presented to support that is the D’Arcis memo. And I’ve already presented a lengthy argument on why it is highly questionable and not reliable.
Other than the D’Arcis memo, there is no other evidence. It is quite remarkable if it’s a fake that nobody knows who the forger is and how he did it. If these basic questions cannot be answered, how can one claim it’s a fake?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1111485#p1111485