This is interesting. Would you say the same thing about the Shroud of Turin, which is authenticated by a myriad of evidences except the C14 dating?
That claim is heavily disputed. By many Christians btw, not just skeptics and atheists.
This is hardly the place to discuss your supposed evidence for the Shroud.
After that thread we had on the subject, this statement is just breathtakingly, arrogantly, false. This scores 9/10 on the Ken Ham Scam-o-meter.
In the thread you are referring to, you were opposing the authenticity of the shroud, but you should not equate opposing an argument with winning an argument.
The Shroud of Turin is not a scientific theory, so not relevant to falsificationism.
I am not making such a false equivocation. I am pointing out that objectively, no verifiable evidence was provided for the authenticity of the Shroud, which is why belief in its authenticity is a fringe view held typically by believers. If there was such a mass of evidence supporting its authenticity as you claim, it would be well recognized by a relevant scholarly consensus.
Okey, let’s me reformulate my initial question which intended to be an epistemological one. Would you say that by itself the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud falsifies its authenticity ?
The authenticity of the Shroud is a scientific hypothesis. As such, it can be falsified.
If I were to tell you that the real Mona Lisa is in my living room and that the one in the Louvre is a fake, how would you demonstrate that my claim is false?
I would say that there were multiple independent radiocarbon dates, not just one; that they are just three of the many reasons to reject the shrouds authenticity; and that your claim that the C14 dating is exceptional is false.
Step one would be to point out that the onus is actually on you to first provide some reason to believe your claim is true, especially given your lack of credibility resulting from the several provably false claims you have made on other topics (such as the TS C14 dates being exceptional).
If the radiocarbon dating was correct, then yes.
However, devotees of the “shroud” claim that the dating was done on a later repair, and not on the original fabric itself. If they were correct, then this single data point would not falsify the “shroud’s” authenticity, because there would be an explanation for the finding.
Similarly, if a single “out of place fossil” could be explained by other means consistent with evolution, it would not falsify the theory.
“Falsifies” is not a very useful word. I’d say it’s strong evidence, and I don’t know of any stronger evidence countering it.
I would say that radiocarbon dating casts a lot of doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud. Given the lack any other dating methodology that puts it in the proper time period, the tentative conclusion should be that the Shroud is not authentic until there is new evidence that supports a different conclusion.
I think to say that such a conclusion is “tentative” is being a bit too, well, tentative.
Not to mention @Giltil’s multiple, objectively false claims about influenza…
I’d say that it is more of a religious hypothesis.
In any case, falsificationism was said to be about scientific theories, rather than hypotheses.
Again, that’s not really a scientific hypothesis. It is an hypothesis about art that might be testable with scientific methods. And an answer would not be likely to influence how we do science.
I would not say that. There was already a lot of doubt about the Shroud. So the radiocarbon dating merely adds support to the view that the Shroud was nothing more than a clever fraud.
That would be wrong. Hypotheses can be falsified, and often are.
The wikipedia article on the carbon dating of the shroud is pretty detailed.
A YEC representation from CMI is on board with the carbon dating, and is skeptical of the Shroud in general.
While no mortal has absolute knowledge, I think the level of confidence here is very, very, very high.