peda schreef: ↑07 jun 2022, 16:47
Zo worden in aardlagen waar fossiele dino resten worden gevonden ook moderne levende bacterie kolonies aangetroffen. Natuurlijke C 14 "'vervuiling"' alom, waar er ook gegraven wordt. Onderzoeker A komt met een opzienbarende vondst, onderzoeker B wijst de opzienbarende vondst naar de fabelen. De never-ending-story.
Bacteriën kunnen geen bron zijn voor C14 besmetting:
* Six Problems with the Contamination Explanation: (See the 6th point below for why collagen itself cannot be contaminated with modern carbon and for the Nature 2017 paper explaining that microbes like cyanobacteria in fossils get their carbon not from the atmosphere but from their bone substrate, meaning that they cannot supply a younger date than a dinosaur fossil, because they date the same as that fossil!) Both mathematical analysis of the data, and the nature of some of the specimens, indicate that contamination does not solve the radiocarbon problem for old-earth geologists.
The inventor of the radiocarbon dating method, Dr. Walter Libby, stated in the journal Science, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen may be altered to yield a false age." To clarify (and still, as of 2021) there is still no known mechanism to contaminate collagen with modern carbon formed in the atmosphere. Further, a 2017 paper in Nature, Carbon fixation from mineral carbonates, confirms that cynobacteria in fossils get "virtually all" of their carbon from the bone substrate they are feeding on! Therefore they cannot "contaminate" the 14c results because they will carbon "date" the same as the bone itself, for their percentage of modern carbon is identical to that of the bone. (Further, there is a pretreatment process of repeated washes of acid/alkali/acid to remove any outer humic acid and debris.) Therefore creationists have been correct to dispute Mary Schweitzer, Lindgren, et al., as they've tried to explain away as microbial contamination the "modern" carbon in an endogenous biomaterial Mosasaur bone. Etc. (See also this post from a committed evolutionist in a battle royale with our old friend rsr.org/david-willis at the Evolution Fairytale forum run by RSR host Fred Williams.) Regarding Libby's "no known natural mechanism" way of contaminating collagen, here's our RSR explanation of why this is. If a specimen is purified to 95% collagen, or 98%, or 99%, etc., then approximately the same percent of the carbon in the fossil sample will be endogenous (i.e., original to the living animal). Why? Because in collagen, new carbon atoms cannot replace original carbon atoms in the tightly-woven scaffolding molecule. As a result of decomposition, to the extent that original carbon atoms were decaying into a gas (nitrogen) and thereby falling out of the scaffolding, then to that extent you would no longer have collagen; rather, to that extent you would have humic acid. Decomposing collagen cannot be "repaired" by free carbon atoms happening upon the decomposition. Rather, the collagen must be manufactured within a living animal (with its constituent carbon atoms) into a "super-super-coil... interdigitated with its neighboring microfibrils... so well ordered as to be crystalline." Further, bacteria do not make collagen, which eliminates another possible source of contamination. So if a researcher can verify that he has a sample that has been purified to 99% collagen, for example, Actual photograph of individual atomsthen he can be sure that all the carbon in that 99% of the sample is original.
Daar waar in het OT "de HERE" met hoofdletters staat, daar staat in het hebreeuws J-H-W-H.