Doubts about carbon dating dating fortune jd
We have had many questions already, so this weekend’s ‘feedback’ by Dr Carl Wieland will respond to the announcement in at least a preliminary way.
In March 2005, in an article entitled Still Soft and Stretchy, we wrote in some detail about the sensational discovery of soft tissue in a fossilized bone after the mineral matrix had been dissolved away by a weak alkaline solution (though a weak acid would have worked too, and many of the subsequent reports call it that).
Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to ‘look like cells’ as the researchers said.
So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, ‘How could these cells last for 65 million years?
The images from that article are so important to this one that they are repeated here, along with the captions.
Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old.
The For one thing, she is reported elsewhere as saying, over time gravity should have made such films thicker at the bottom, contrary to observations.
Creationists have all along been keen to see the soft objects in Schweitzer’s discovery subjected to carbon dating.paper.
Immunological tests even seemed to confirm the presence of hemoglobin, a complex and fragile molecule that should in no way be able to last for ‘millions of years’.
The relevant portion of the bone in that case actually appeared to be unfossilized (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!