From your comments, it appears you haven't read any of the source material given to you by anyone on this thread -- at least not carefully enough to do more than whip back, "It's not TRUE!"
You'll have to give specific examples, son.
Certain types of responses can end up making a poster look like an uninformed troll.
For example: repeated use of ad hominem;
making blanket statements about an opponent's sources, even after being corrected (e.g. Wikipedia does have its flaws, but they can be trivially shown -- and have been shown -- not to apply to this topic)
It would be more intellectually honest to take a few days and dig deeper, in order to find that some of the sources you had relied upon as authoritative have already in fact been disputed or refuted.
And you have even been given a number of face-saving ways out. You should have noted that Swordmaker for example has corrected some of the purported 'explanations' of incorrect carbon dating, and substituted others, from experts in their own field with no particular axe to grind either way. And I have pointed out an entire class of chemical reactions known and studied outside of this topic which account for the image without requiring either fakery OR the supernatural.
Shrill repetition of one's point, in the face of increasing and varied evidence to the contrary, is a mark of desperation.
Cheers!
It’s beyond me why you’re so attached to the “Skeptical Inquirer” site. It asserts things as fact that aren’t true, like the BS that the “blood” on the shroud is real, and yes, if you’re pulling your information off of Wikipedia it’s a strong sign you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You can ad hominem me all you please, I’m not going to say the sky is green and filled with fire-breathing reindeer.