[EternalHope]

Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.

Guess you're not up to date on the carbon dating actually used.

The sample used was from a corner the Catholic Church felt was not essential to the shroud. It had been contaminated in a fire, and restored in a way that invalidated its use for carbon dating purposes. In addition, it was subsequently shown that the individual fibers in the shroud had grown a biological "sheath" that was not removed prior to testing, and added new biomass to the original material. Since this new growth was obviously younger than the shroud itself, it undoubtedly changed the tested age of the sample.

Attempts have been made to mathematically correct for these problems. You may choose to dispute the math, but the correction results in a first century date for the shroud.

[orionblamblam]

> . It had been contaminated in a fire

Except, of course, fire does not invalidate carbon dating.

> and added new biomass

This is another red herring. The mass of "biosheath" required to throw off the dating by the required amount would exceed the mass of the shroud itself.

The carbon dating may be off by a few dacades, tops. That's why, when it's presented, it's always presented with error bars.

The carbon dating still stands.