|
|
|
|
|
There have been claims that a biological polymer was growing on the Shroud
and that this could have affected the date. This "theory" has received a lot of
play in books about the ST and in many magazine articles. It is repeated on
dozens of web sites. The National Science Foundation Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the
University of Nebraska, using highly sensitive pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry,
could not detect any such polymers on Shroud fibers. Furthermore, it is well known that a biopolymer product would show the same
carbon age as the Shroud because the organism, as it grew and formed, would use
fixed carbon from the cellulose fibers and not from the atmosphere. Nonetheless, the argument involving bioplastic growth persists. One reason is
that ancient textiles that have been grossly misdated, especially in the
earliest days of radiocarbon testing, and some suspect it is because of
bioplastic growths. Most notable of these is mummy 1770 of the British Museum,
whose bones were dated some 800–1000 years earlier than its cloth wrappings.
Proponents also point out that the corner used for the dating would have been
handled more often than other parts of the shroud, increasing the likelihood of
contamination by bacteria and bacterial residue. Bacteria and associated residue
(bacteria by-products and dead bacteria) carry additional carbon and would skew
the radiocarbon date toward the present. Harry E. Gove of the University of Rochester, who developed Mass Spectrometry
Analysis for carbon 14 dating, the particular radiocarbon test used, has stated,
"There is a bioplastic coating on some threads, maybe most." According to Gove,
if this coating is thick enough, it "would make the fabric sample seem younger
than it should be." Others disagree. One reason is that an error of 1300 years
resulting from bacterial contamination would have required a layer approximately
doubling weight of the tested samples. This can be shown mathematically. Sadly many authors, including highly esteemed and reputable authors like Ben
Witherington III writing in Christianity Today, have picked up on this
hypothesis and a scorching fire hypothesis and given them traction. |
The
scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the
scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than
settle it.”
It is
simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was
made.”
Scientist-Journalist Philip Ball Nature, that most prestigious of scientific journals, that once had bragging rights to claim that the Shroud was fake, responding to new, peer-reviewed studies that discredit the carbon 14 dating and show that the Shroud could be authentic. WHAT WE KNOW IN 2005
|