Because of this, critics assert that what Schweitzer really found was a contaminated sample, not a breakthrough.

young earth dating carbon-1

And regardless of whether the paleontological community eventually embraces or refutes the tissue in question, the find does seem to make ideas that used to be impossible merely improbable.

To find out more about fossils, paleontological disagreements, unexpected discoveries and related topics, dig your way through the links on the next page.

They therefore hypothesised that nuclear decay rates were accelerated by a factor of approximately one billion on the first two days of the Creation week and during the Flood.

Non-affiliated experts who have scrutinised the claims have unanimously rejected them as flawed.

She explained that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work [source: Yeoman].

A response to Schweitzer's 2007 paper -- the one reporting the presence of protein -- points out several questions about the findings, including the likelihood of contamination.Fossils also come into contact with human and other tissues during excavation.This presents a challenge for researchers trying to prove that a cell, tissue sample or DNA strand came from a specific extinct animal.The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it.Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth.Schweitzer's 2008 paper describing protein sequences adds some weight to the idea that the tissue belonged to the T. In the minds of many, the presence of peptides in a specimen as old as a T. This means the only option is that the protein came from another source.