TJT2
2016-11-26 05:05:44 UTC
Ja kontaminaatiokin suljettu pois, joten mitenkäs ateistit (ja ateismia
työhypona käyttävä agnostikko Otto J Makela) selittää?
x x x clip x x x
More dinosaur soft tissue found and carbon dated
Published: 19 November 2016 (GMT+10)
Phil K from the United States writes in,
In today's (8/2/2016) reprinted article originally published 22 January
2013, Dr Carl Wieland replied in the Comments section that the Creation
Research Society had in possession a chunk of soft tissue from a Triceratops
that was going to be tested for Protein, DNA, and C14.
I searched the CMI website for "Triceratops" and can't find the results of
those tests. I am very curious what the results of those tests were. Do you
have them?
CMI's Joel Tay responds:
Dear Phil K,
I would assume that you are referring to Dr Wieland's comments on this page.
The Triceratops soft tissue Dr. Carl Wieland referred to in the comments
section here was probably a reference to part of the iDINO project carried
out by the Creation Research Society.
Layers of soft and stretchable tissue were discovered in the brow horn of a
Triceratops.1 When examined under a scanning electron microscope, bone
osteocytes cells were seen together with extraordinary structural
preservation of the cell. This even included the preservation of thin
protein extensions from the cell membranes called filipodia. These filipodia
measured less than 300 nm in diameter and were seen branching into the
underlying bone matrix.2
Some skeptics in the past have tried to dismiss claims of soft tissue as
mere biofilms left behind by bacteria. The iDINO project special report
refutes the skeptics by demonstrating under a scanning electron microscope,
that what we are seeing are not merely biofilms, but highly structured soft
tissue in dinosaur bone. This argues strongly against the idea that the
fossil is 65 million years old as many evolutionists claim.
More recently, Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson carbon dated a number of
dinosaur fossils including two specimens from Triceratops horridus.3 The two
specimens gave a date in years of 33,570±20 and 41,010±220.4
In the same issue of the iDINO project special report, Brian Thomas
published a paper on original biomaterial in fossils, where he discusses the
discovery of protein (e.g. collagen) and DNA in fossils from different
strata. He also discusses mechanisms of preservation that skeptics have
appealed to when trying to explain why biomaterial is found in these
supposedly ancient fossils.5 The paper also mentions that the half-life (at
13.1°C) of moa mitochondrial DNA is reported in the literature as 521
years (a figure the author considers unrealistically large). Yet this only
serves to compound the problem for evolution since DNA, red blood cells,
bone proteins, etc. should not be present in ancient fossils if they were
really that old.
The idea that soft tissue can exist for 65 million years is highly
problematic for evolution since we would expect soft tissue to have
completely degraded in a far shorter period of time. Soft tissue
preservation in dinosaurs fits very nicely with the Biblical understanding
that dinosaur fossils are evidence of rapid burial by the global flood a few
thousand years ago.
I hope that helps,
Joel Tay
Nico S., Netherlands, 21 November 2016
I wonder how anyone could think that two C14 dates with a difference of 22%
are not the result of contamination. If these dates were reliable, the
difference between them would be much smaller.
Joel Tay responds
These are two different dinosaur samples.
As explained in the Creation Answers Book here, there are many factors that
can affect the Carbon-14 uptake so that we will get a different age depends
on a number of different circumstances. We would also expect a much older
age for flood deposits and for fossils deposited soon after the flood.
What is significant though, is that Carbon-14's short half-life has a
maximum upper limit of 100,000 years, so that any sample containing
Carbon-14 (apart from contamination) has to be significantly younger. All 16
fossil samples tested in the paper, 'Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and other
fossils' by Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson (CRSQ 2015. 51:299-311) tested
positive for Carbon-14. The two Triceratops samples mentioned in this paper
are part of that study.
Those who want to insist that these fossils are millions of years old are
thus only left with the option of appealing to contamination. But where is
the evidence of such contamination? There is none.
Furthermore, all sixteen samples in this study, including the two
Triceratops samples mentions in this article have been tested for
contamination, so it is not possible to blame the Carbon-14 results on any
kind of contamination. Contamination is easily ruled out by comparing with
Carbon-13, a stable non-radioactive molecule. Since all 16 samples tested
(including the two Triceratops samples here) have already taken into account
Carbon-13, the charge of contamination is conclusively refuted.
The presence of Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones remains problematic for those
who hold to the idea of millions of years of evolution.
Ref 4:
A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a
'radiocarbon age' of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000-50,000 years.
Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and
fossil wood from layers allegedly 'millions of years' old. The reason is:
radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a
trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting
ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller
before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic
field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much
lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be
smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon
dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book.
x x x clop x x x
http://creation.com/triceratops-soft-tissue
Viitteeseen 4 lisähuomautus, että kreationistit esittivät tuon
ilmakehämallin jo kauan ennen kuin näitä "liian vanhoja" näytteitä alettiin
C-14 mitata, joten kreationistinen tiede siis ennusti, että jos mitataan
niin tulokseksi tulee kymmeniä tuhansia, joka tuosta mainitusta suhteesta
johtuen oikeasti tarkoittaa muutamia tuhansia vuosia.
Ateistis-evolutionistinen tiede sen sijaan ennusti, että ei löydy ollenkaan
C-14:ää, tulos jää kohinan alapuolelle, ja kohinahan vähennetään
rutiinitoimenpiteenä (vaikka mensamuonio Suoniosta yritti kovasti todistella
että mahdoton operaatio). Kreationistien ennuste osui täysin oikeaan,
evolutionistien ennuste meni täysin pieleen. Kreationismi verifioitu,
evolutionismi falsifioitu.
työhypona käyttävä agnostikko Otto J Makela) selittää?
x x x clip x x x
More dinosaur soft tissue found and carbon dated
Published: 19 November 2016 (GMT+10)
Phil K from the United States writes in,
In today's (8/2/2016) reprinted article originally published 22 January
2013, Dr Carl Wieland replied in the Comments section that the Creation
Research Society had in possession a chunk of soft tissue from a Triceratops
that was going to be tested for Protein, DNA, and C14.
I searched the CMI website for "Triceratops" and can't find the results of
those tests. I am very curious what the results of those tests were. Do you
have them?
CMI's Joel Tay responds:
Dear Phil K,
I would assume that you are referring to Dr Wieland's comments on this page.
The Triceratops soft tissue Dr. Carl Wieland referred to in the comments
section here was probably a reference to part of the iDINO project carried
out by the Creation Research Society.
Layers of soft and stretchable tissue were discovered in the brow horn of a
Triceratops.1 When examined under a scanning electron microscope, bone
osteocytes cells were seen together with extraordinary structural
preservation of the cell. This even included the preservation of thin
protein extensions from the cell membranes called filipodia. These filipodia
measured less than 300 nm in diameter and were seen branching into the
underlying bone matrix.2
Some skeptics in the past have tried to dismiss claims of soft tissue as
mere biofilms left behind by bacteria. The iDINO project special report
refutes the skeptics by demonstrating under a scanning electron microscope,
that what we are seeing are not merely biofilms, but highly structured soft
tissue in dinosaur bone. This argues strongly against the idea that the
fossil is 65 million years old as many evolutionists claim.
More recently, Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson carbon dated a number of
dinosaur fossils including two specimens from Triceratops horridus.3 The two
specimens gave a date in years of 33,570±20 and 41,010±220.4
In the same issue of the iDINO project special report, Brian Thomas
published a paper on original biomaterial in fossils, where he discusses the
discovery of protein (e.g. collagen) and DNA in fossils from different
strata. He also discusses mechanisms of preservation that skeptics have
appealed to when trying to explain why biomaterial is found in these
supposedly ancient fossils.5 The paper also mentions that the half-life (at
13.1°C) of moa mitochondrial DNA is reported in the literature as 521
years (a figure the author considers unrealistically large). Yet this only
serves to compound the problem for evolution since DNA, red blood cells,
bone proteins, etc. should not be present in ancient fossils if they were
really that old.
The idea that soft tissue can exist for 65 million years is highly
problematic for evolution since we would expect soft tissue to have
completely degraded in a far shorter period of time. Soft tissue
preservation in dinosaurs fits very nicely with the Biblical understanding
that dinosaur fossils are evidence of rapid burial by the global flood a few
thousand years ago.
I hope that helps,
Joel Tay
Nico S., Netherlands, 21 November 2016
I wonder how anyone could think that two C14 dates with a difference of 22%
are not the result of contamination. If these dates were reliable, the
difference between them would be much smaller.
Joel Tay responds
These are two different dinosaur samples.
As explained in the Creation Answers Book here, there are many factors that
can affect the Carbon-14 uptake so that we will get a different age depends
on a number of different circumstances. We would also expect a much older
age for flood deposits and for fossils deposited soon after the flood.
What is significant though, is that Carbon-14's short half-life has a
maximum upper limit of 100,000 years, so that any sample containing
Carbon-14 (apart from contamination) has to be significantly younger. All 16
fossil samples tested in the paper, 'Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and other
fossils' by Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson (CRSQ 2015. 51:299-311) tested
positive for Carbon-14. The two Triceratops samples mentioned in this paper
are part of that study.
Those who want to insist that these fossils are millions of years old are
thus only left with the option of appealing to contamination. But where is
the evidence of such contamination? There is none.
Furthermore, all sixteen samples in this study, including the two
Triceratops samples mentions in this article have been tested for
contamination, so it is not possible to blame the Carbon-14 results on any
kind of contamination. Contamination is easily ruled out by comparing with
Carbon-13, a stable non-radioactive molecule. Since all 16 samples tested
(including the two Triceratops samples here) have already taken into account
Carbon-13, the charge of contamination is conclusively refuted.
The presence of Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones remains problematic for those
who hold to the idea of millions of years of evolution.
Ref 4:
A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a
'radiocarbon age' of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000-50,000 years.
Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and
fossil wood from layers allegedly 'millions of years' old. The reason is:
radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a
trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting
ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller
before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic
field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much
lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be
smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon
dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book.
x x x clop x x x
http://creation.com/triceratops-soft-tissue
Viitteeseen 4 lisähuomautus, että kreationistit esittivät tuon
ilmakehämallin jo kauan ennen kuin näitä "liian vanhoja" näytteitä alettiin
C-14 mitata, joten kreationistinen tiede siis ennusti, että jos mitataan
niin tulokseksi tulee kymmeniä tuhansia, joka tuosta mainitusta suhteesta
johtuen oikeasti tarkoittaa muutamia tuhansia vuosia.
Ateistis-evolutionistinen tiede sen sijaan ennusti, että ei löydy ollenkaan
C-14:ää, tulos jää kohinan alapuolelle, ja kohinahan vähennetään
rutiinitoimenpiteenä (vaikka mensamuonio Suoniosta yritti kovasti todistella
että mahdoton operaatio). Kreationistien ennuste osui täysin oikeaan,
evolutionistien ennuste meni täysin pieleen. Kreationismi verifioitu,
evolutionismi falsifioitu.
--
--TJT--
The only thing that appears to be evolving is 'evolution,' and it's becoming
more and more absurd.
--TJT--
The only thing that appears to be evolving is 'evolution,' and it's becoming
more and more absurd.