Hence the growth must incorporate carbon from an external source, and to produce an age shift like that postulated, that source must be the atmosphere, whether by photosynthesis or some other mechanism.
Accepting that, I can postulate three scenarios that illustrate the problems I have with the theory.
Although most Christians consider the Shroud to be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus, the results of the 1988 c-14 (carbon-14) dating has been puzzling.
Firm believers in the authenticity of the Shroud were confident of a serious dating error (or incredible oversight in the c-14 dating process).
However, further evidence of encrustation is visible in the Oxford photographs.14 Below is a comparison of the 3 samples tested at higher magnification (the Shroud, Thebes and Nubia).
Most images on this site are copyrighted and used with permission.
Please do not copy images without obtaining permission of the copyright owner.
The other reasons for fakery (not fraudulence, as it apparently wasn’t designed to deceive people) are given in a very nice article by the historian Charles Freeman that just appeared in Other scientists, however, believe those results could be off by centuries, pointing to the possibility of bacterial contamination of the cloth. And I’d also like to hear them say that Adam and Eve weren’t the historical ancestors of all humanity.
They note, for instance, that burial shrouds for Egyptian pharaohs sometimes test to centuries later than their known age for precisely that reason In view of the multifarious evidence, the Church really should say that it was a medieval painting that could not have been Jesus’s burial shroud. (Genetic studies have disproven a two-person ancestry.) But it will be a cold day in July (in Chicago) when that happens!