Its ridiculous to say it is wrong without knowing. Ridiculous.
There is a big difference between saying it
is wrong and saying it is
probably wrong. You seem to be misrepresenting my arguments and missing the point. I'm not saying it
is wrong.
It is perfectly rational to say it is
probably wrong though because that is what the probabilities would suggest.
The dating might possibly be correct, if it is then later part of the date range is more probable than the 'before Muhammad' part. Why? Probabilities based on evidence. You use them sometimes too, see?
And I would like to know which idiot says the Sanaa script is from the 6th century.
Actually it was dated to between 433-599
and 543-643
and 578-669. The 'idiot' was RC dating, the very thing that you are praising for its wonderful accuracy.
Nobody takes the 5th/6th C dates as being accurate of course, some people take things like this into account before getting over-excited about the the RC dating of other manuscripts though.
Don't take RC dating as a god, it's very polytheistic
Augustus. Your argument is based on an assumption. But it contains contamination. A maximum of 1%. And hemispheric effect has been highly considered in the dating.
I never mentioned contamination, it is about the problems of
calibration. It is simply impossible to calibrate these machines to a very high degree of accuracy for dating ME manuscripts as there is not enough data to do so. This is why actual scholars in the field remain cautious, but open minded on the subject. Apologists on the other hand, act like apologists...