C-14 evidence by itself is not conclusive evidence

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.


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?