Shroud of Turin redivivus

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@Roy

@Giltil

A good start is to follow the evidence wherever it lead.

Such as the evidence obtained by carbon dating the Turin shroud?

There are a plethora of observations that point to the authenticity of the shroud…

Not true. If there were, people wouldn’t be looking for more, and you wouldn’t need to serve up so much rubbish.

… but nearly only one, the carbon dating, that points to the opposite conclusion.

Not true. Many other reasons have been discussed on this forum, in threads you have partaken in.

Given that there are good evidence the the carbon dating was not valid for determining the age of the shroud (see below),

Not true.

1. The people who selected the sample to carbon date expected to get a much older date. They were satisfied they had a suitable sample - until the results were produced.

2. No-one mentioned any possibility of the selected sample not being part of the shroud until after the results were produced.

3. If it were true that they dated the wrong sample, then dating a better sample would show this, and shroud afficionados would be insisting the test be redone on a more appropriate sample. But none of them are. Instead they are looking for alternative dating mechanisms that are less accurate and easier to fudge.

…if we are to follow the evidence wherever it lead, at this stage, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the shroud is authentic.

Piffle.

You aren’t following the evidence, you’re discarding evidence until you find something you like.