Carbon dating shroud of turin
Carroll perhaps is right when he states that the date cannot prove that the cloth was Jesus’ burial shroud.
Given a plausible range of average ambient temperatures during the life of the cloth, chemical kinetics demonstrates that the cloth is somewhere between 1,300 and 3,000 years old and not about 700 years old as the carbon dating suggested.
Second, we need not ascribe miraculous causation to the image, as Carroll suggests, to infer at some level of certainty that it might be the shroud Jesus was wrapped in.
Mattingly proposes that the added material is a product of microbiological action.
Such microbiological processes require fixed carbon, nitrogen, phosphate, sulfur, etc., to produce the products observed as biopolymers.
The most important organisms that fix CO2 are plants, mostly green plants.
We need not cut off the debate, as Carroll does, by proclaiming that belief in its authenticity is simply a matter of faith.
The suggestion that the image might be from a much later period is interesting but improbable.The chemical components of biopolymers can be detected with great sensitivity. Rogers took authentic Shroud fibers, which she laboriously extracted from the STURP sampling tapes by washing them free of adhesive with xylene (not a solvent for any "bioplastic polymers"), to Metuchen, NJ, for laser-microprobe Raman analysis.The analysis is extremely sensitive, but nothing was observed that would indicate a "bioplastic polymer." She also took fibers to the NSF Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska.There is no significant amount of bioplastic polymers on the main part of the Shroud.In order to change the carbon date, the organisms Mattingly postulates must be utilizing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The addition of modern carbon is the only way to decrease the apparent age of ancient carbon-containing material.One historical claim in support of such an idea, as we will see, doesn’t stand up to objective history or scientific analysis.