Featured Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

The Catholic Herald seem to have missed this news. so the claim seems pretty dubious. However were it true it would not be objective evidence for a deity of course. Why would you think it was? For a genius you seem to love leaping to biased and unevidenced conclusions.

 

I can't find any independent confirmation of this claim anywhere, the Shroud was carbon dated in 1988, and the result showed it dated to the 13th century.

Can you demonstrate even one independent source for this story, let alone peer review? Only the claim is looking more and more like a dubious fabrication.

 

It doesn't prove God exists, that Jesus is God or does not provide a direct link to Jesus. It's just older than we thought. I don't think you entirely understand how proof works.

And then, there is this...

"We obtained one-dimensional integrated WAXS data profiles for the TS sample, which were fully compatible with the analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55–74 AD, Siege of Masada (Israel)." ~from the article

 

You're ignoring the date and location of the finding.

 

The shroud of turin is an early attempt at 2D photography. It certainly is not a 3D images as draped over a face and body. Which would look something like this.


Its easy to check for yourself. Lie down, place a handkerchief over your face and mark the prominent features using a felt tip pen.

 

So no then, you can't offer a single independent source supporting that claim? Don't you find it bizarre that the RCC hasn't reported this at all? For a self proclaimed genius you seem pretty gullible.

 

Cite another source please, not a link to a YouTube video. I can get a YouTube video proving mermaids are real in a few seconds, it is not a reliable or credible source.

Edit. 0:58 seconds into your video, "Elite scientists have stated "we are dealing with two very different dating techniques, that have produced significantly different results, when this happens caution is required before final conclusions are reached"

Now have you shown any caution here? You immediately leaped on the conclusion, even making the bizarre assumption it was proof for a deity.

 

All we have so far is a single source you provided making a claim, how gullible do you imagine we are? Also why is it "good news"? A piece of cloth might be older than previously thought, not exactly world shattering news. Your eager bias here is palpable, as usual. You ought to try and retain at least some pretence of objectivity.

 

Logic? Nah more like confirmation bias

 

Firstly that's not what Hamilton's 4th law says, it can be encompassed in the premise: "Infer nothing without ground or reason" More HERE
Which is precisely what you're doing here inferring seeming based on nothing but assumption.

Oh dear....As I said you should try and retain at least the pretence of some objectivity here, your eager bias is making your posts appear silly. Even in the video you linked he managed to check his hubris a little, and pointed out that using new dating technique which conflicts with another one will require replication of the test at the very least to properly establish the results, and even then your assumption the date proves a deity exists is risible.

 

You're going to have to explain why you've just offered me my own link back in response, and if you'd bothered to read the explanation of the law you'd see where I got its conclusion from.

The result of this new dating technique differs from another established technique, and your own video link pointed out that scientific experts advised caution before reaching a conclusion, you have shown no such caution. The date of the shroud is not evidence of anything supernatural per se, and nor is it evidence of a deity per se, you have simply assumed these conclusions, thus your conclusion is without ground or reasoning, as you haven't sufficient reason for those conclusions, ipso facto your conclusions violate the 4th law of logic that you yourself cited.

 

It was actually the LHC that discovered the Higgs boson. I.e. observation.