Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

I see most of the points have been covered already but lets sum it up and see where it goes okay?(1) 14C dating is used to date objects containing 14C absorbed by organisms from the atmosphere during their lifetime - after death the 14C decays thus giving an indication based on the half life of 14C of when the organism lived. What is measured is the ratio of 14C to 12-C (the stable carbon isotope).Assumptions used:

the organism carbon content was in equilibrium with the atmospheric carbon content during the life of the organism,

the atmospheric 14C /12-C ratio was fairly constant during the life of the organism, and

the atmospheric 14C/12-C ratio is fairly constant in the past or the content can be correlated (calibrated) over time with other dating mechanisms to fine tune more precisely to the actual age of the atmosphere in question (that is what is being dated eh? not the organism per se, but the atmosphere consumed by the organism while it was living.)

​

As a result:

non-organic measurements are bogus because they don't depend on the consumption of carbon from the atmosphere during the "life" of the object.

non-atmospheric 14C measurements are bogus because they don't depend on the consumption of carbon from the atmosphere during the life of the object.
-- this includes marine life that use alternative sources of carbon, usually carbonates, and any life forms that obtain substantial portions of their diet from such marine life.

​

(2) The source of atmospheric 14C is 14-N plus bombardment by a neutron, a relatively rare occurrence that results in one 14C atom for every 10^{^12} 12-C atoms.
(= 1/1,000,000,000,000 carbon atoms)

​

The method

There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material.

​

In other words the amount of 14C in your body could be concentrated into a small grain of pure carbon that would be very hard to see in your hand with the unaided eye

200 lbs x 16oz/lb
------------------------ = 0.0000000032 ounces ...
1,000,000,000,000}

... if you were pure carbon ... and we are 98% water ...

​

As a result:

We are dealing with a very small initial amount of radioactive material in any sample -- before it starts decaying.

There is a "whole lot more" non-radioactive carbon in the initial sample and

There is a "whole lot more" (non-radioactive) nitrogen (14-N -- the original source of that 14C eh?)

​

(3) The half-life of 14C is 5715 years and the practical limit for 14C dating is45,000 to 50,000 years (depending on sources, but a good one was already provided: Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (click) - a lot of other useful information too, so you'll have to either (a) read the whole thing or (b) search the site for "carbon-14" references.

​

Let's say the limit is 40,000 years

​

As a result:

After 40,000 years the amount of 14C is 0.8% of what was in the original sample at the time of death

​

Now normally 0.8% is not considered a small number, but remember that we are already dealing with a small initial sample, but the other reasons that this is the practical limit of 14C dating are:

Uncertainty - we are getting down to where the numbers of molecules left in the sample size could mean that the variability in the number of actually decayed 14C molecules versus the number that should have decayed by the probability calculations makes the actual dates uncertain, and

Background levels of 14C are interfering with the ability to measure the sample accurately

Contamination of the sample by a very small amount at this level produces larger variations in dates

​

As a result:

No scientist uses 14C for anything that dates older than 50,000 years,

Dates beyond 40,000 years can be considered questionable, and

Labs generally report results in this level as a minimum age or that the amount was too small to measure accurately

Anyone claiming otherwise is misrepresenting the facts

​

(4) 14C content of extremely ancient samples correlates with radioactivity rather than age (and I would have used the same example Percy already used in Message 65 of the 14C content in oil by Kathleen Hunt), from Percy's link:

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little ¹⁴C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in ¹⁴C content. Some have no detectable ¹⁴C; some have quite a lot of ¹⁴C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that ¹⁴C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of ¹⁴C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!

(bold color yellow mine for emPHAsis) ...

​

As a result:

You have a correlation of erroneous 14C dates with levels of radioactive contamination rather than age for these materials.

The measured "ages" in the radioactive contaminated materials date to 40,000 years or older and 40,000 years correlates to 0.8% of the original sample proportion of 14C to 12C

A very small amount of a vastly more abundant material (14N) needs to be contaminated by local radioactivity to achieve such erroneous results.

​

(5) PurpleYouko's Message 68 information regarding spontaneous fission producing neutrons in those same kinds of radioactive materials -- those same kinds of neutrons and energy that caused the formation of 14C from 14N in the atmosphere ...

​

As a result:

You have "means, motive and opportunity" for the errors in ancient carbon dates to be due entirely to radioactivity in the surrounding materials.

​

Logical conclusions:
(1) The world is at least 40,000 years old (whether ancient carbon sources have elevated levels of 14C due to radioactivity or not) and
(2) 14C dating is reliable when used for the proper kinds of samples and the age limitations of the method, and when it is controlled for known sources of errors -- non-organic samples, non-atmospheric organic samples, and radioactivity contaminated samples - ie when it is used honestly.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes, because it doesn't take a LOT of ¹⁴C in the ground to throw off the calculations for age based on the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C (and it is the ratio that the age calculation is based on, not the raw amount) and fromHow Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks:
t = [ln(N_f/N_o)/(-0.693)]xt_1/2where t is the computed age, t_1/2 is the half life (5715 years), N_f is the ratio of 14C/12C atoms in the sample and N_o is the ratio of 14C/12C atoms at the time of death.
{corrected info by edit}As I noted before: Let's round that to 1% of the original amount which was 0.00000000010% of the number of 12C atoms -- now we have 0.0000000000010% of the number of carbon atoms in a sample, which is not very many eh?Or to look at it another way:To have a radioactive generated false age of 40,000 years you need one 14N atom converted to 14C for every 100,000,000,000,000 (=10^{^14}) carbon atoms in the sample ...-- that's not a heck of a lot of contamination --... and it seems (from the Kathleen Hunt article) that the false 40,000 years age is at the maximum level of contamination detected in {radioactive} ancient oils and coals.This same level of contamination in proper samples plays less of a role in creating a false age the younger the sample is, because of the expotential decay curve:If a sample that was really 10,000 years old had an extra 1% of 14C due to nearby radioactive contamination, the false age would still be 9,786 years, or a 2.1% error.If a sample was really 20,000 years old had an extra 1% of 14C due to nearby radioactive contamination, the false age would still be 19,301 years, or a 3.5% error.If a sample was really 30,000 years old had an extra 1% of 14C due to nearby radioactive contamination, the false age would still be 27,853 years, or a 7.2% error.If a sample was really 40,000 years old had an extra 1% of 14C due to nearby radioactive contamination, the false age would still be 34,284 years, or a 14.3% error.This is why they have to go outside the legitimate age range for 14C dating to find false data.Even without correction then, this is really rather insignificant over the legitimate age range for 14C dating methods (compare to the standard error reported with such ages).You'll also note that all these result in a false YOUNGER age for the samples, so we are still left with legitimate ages of legitimate samples being several times the assumed YEC age of the universe.Typical creatortionista screaming wolf over a molehill.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added "{radioactive}"Edited by RAZD, : corrected formula info

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But it is no barrier to neutrons and there are plenty of sources of neutrons (spontaneous fission for one) to have enough effect on coal and oils to convert 14N to 14C just as they do in the atmosphere.Even if the only source of 14N were the decayed remains of 14C from the original source, you only need one in every 100 atoms converted every 5715 years to get enough contamination for a false 40,000 year age in ancient coal and oil.The false readings correlate with radioactive contamination, not with age.This position of yours that 14C cannot be formed within the earth is falsified. This is another hoary creatortionista fantasy. Leaching does not differentiate between isotopes, and age is measured by the ratio of 14C to 12C. This is also falsified by Lake Suigetsu, where annual layers of diatoms and clay date the organic objects (leaves etc) caught in the sediment layers, and where the 14C dates for those organic objects match the physical age determined by counting the layers.Read what this christian site says about the lake layers:
Lake Varves If you want to discuss the correlations of age measuring systems then go to the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), as it covers more than 14C methods. What these all show, however is that the correlations of 14C dates to known annual layer dates is very good:

{note: image originally from http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm
copied to a mirror site to cut down on bandwidth usage}The deviation from a straight 45 degree line is due to the change in atmospheric 14C content due to climate. It is at most 16.7% and the effect is that organic objects are actually older than the dates given by the 14C method (data is below the 45 degree line).This is in a lake bottom where leaching would be expected if it were a problem, yet the data correlates with the physical counting of the layers, and the error between the data and an effect from leaching would be (according to your assertion) above the 45 degree line.It appears the facts, whether "pressing forward" or not, falsify your assertions.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : credited image to original site

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Denial is like that. The beginning of the curve was located based on the same kind of data from other sources, and it is confirmed by the same kind of data from still other sources -- read the article.And your "rate the C14 is being diluted" concept is false for a number of other reasons:First off the slope of the line is flatter than the 45 degree line, while for your scenario it MUST be steeper (leaching increased with age)Second the data includes not just Lake Suigetsu but other systems of age date correlations -- the tree rings and corals -- that would all have to have exactly the same rate of mysterious 14C disappearance with time and for which your "leaching" mechanism cannot account.Third there should be scatter in the data if it was affected by leaching processes as different organic objects would have different rates of leaching, and the graph shows a very linear progression that doesn't need a line to connect the dots of data.Fourth leaching would be a linear loss of material, while decay is an expotential loss, and this would result in a very sharp upward curve in the data for leaching to be valid -- to the point where the 40,000 year age from 14C should be only 100 times the loss from 1 year.And you still have not explained how leaching could affect only 14C and not affect 12C. Without this magical mysterious mechanism the concept is useless wishful thinking. This must be some example of "creationist logic" because it doesn't follow at all from the data.For one, the layers themselves add up to much more than 50,000 years of physical counted year after year layers (they keep going beyond the depth used for 14C calibration), so the layers confirm an old age of the earth, even without the 14C data.This physical counted age confirms the 14C age dating no matter where you start the floating varve data, as it just adjusts the correlation horizontal offset at the beginning and doesn't change the shape of the curve, so it doesn't change the slope and it doesn't change the linearity of the curve when matched against the expotential decay model of 14C with a half-life of 5715 years. Care to back that up with some mathematical calculations to show how it works?Lets have something more than some magical mysterious leaching mechanism, lets have a model for how it works and what the effect over time is so we can calculate the ratio at different ages and then compare them to the data and see how it fits.You obviously must have that available, seeing as you have made conclusions based on the kinds of information that can only come from such an analysis eh? -- unless it is entirely made up from wishful thinking and refusal to accept the real world data (denial is like that).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

One could also email Dr Gove and get an update -- I'm sure more information is available now than when the coal article was written in 2002.Or follow up on the references on Ms Hunts paperEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

This concept is as falsified as your leaching one by the data from Lake Suigetsu when analysed over the known time intervals -- see Carbon 14 Dating and the possible effect of "leaching"Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I read the pdf version
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/...99/07-09.1999.04Martens.pdfAlso see Anaerobic methane oxidation in marine systems and Cafe Methane (nasa news stories)It also involves the methane banks off the coasts (applicable to several localities of marine sediments -- methane banks may be the next fuel source), and as such it is a deep marine environment that would then be depleted of atmospheric sources for 14C and so wouldn't be dated properly anyway. Of course it would then have more 12C than 14C, because the source of 14C was already depleted, not because of any effect of the leaching mechanism.His original comment was There are several problems with this, not least of which is that 14C dating is not done on mineralized fossils -- it is done on organic samples.Others have commented on the leaching in specific reference to Lake Suigetsu, so I thought I would put that canard to bed.And he is also now claiming on this one that there is 12C being imported into the material: Does he realize that there are 10^{^10} more molecules of 12C than 14C at the start?Any idea how much 12C you would need to import to change the date measurments?Thanks.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm sorry, but I seem to have missed something ...Can you fill in the missing information?Such as where you provided the information you must have to show how this "leaching" can result in an exact match of varve dates to decay dates, when one is linear and one is exponential.While you are at it, also explain how the samples of the Bristlecone Pine are also affected by some (as yet unknown process) even though they have an exact correlation between tree ring age and decay age from trees that are either (a) living, with a tree ring counted age of 4,844 years when it was cut down in 1957, or (b) lying on the ground in the same area with exact correlations of overlapping ages for climate changes year by year, extending the tree ring verified age to nearly 10,000 years (and still matching the decay age in the process ... and remembering that one process is linear (tree rings) and the other process is exponential (decay).AND while you're at that, also explain how the european oak tree ring data that also extends to 10,000 years by the same process of matching specimens by annual ring climates, and which also corroborates the Bristlecone Pine climate data AND correlates directly with the decay age for those specimens - even though they include specimens buried in the peat bogs of europe.AND then while you are finishing that up, you can explain the mechanism that makes the lake varves and the tree rings all seem to have the appearance not only of annual markers but correlate with each other on climate changes --- something that operates in three different parts of the world with at least two entirely different mechanisms, yet produces an identical result.Then you can move on to the other piece of missing information that you must have provided somewhere on how the ancient coal and oil correlate with radioactivity, and how the known mechanisms for releasing sufficient energy and the correct kinds of particles under radioactivity ... how this results in too much age for some and too little for others by your method of "dilution" along with demonstrating where the missing 14C has gone (if everything died 5k to 6k years ago, and thus should have had half of the original 14C content, so for it to "leach out" to give the appearance of great age it must have accumulated somewhere with WAY TOO MUCH 14C for anything living today).Think of it this way: your queen is unguarded and under attack, and your king is in check, you cannot block the check without sacrificing the queen, and you are trying to move a pawn forward that does nothing to help the king. It's a false move.Your assertions have been challenged and until you answer the challenges, continuing to assert them is childish. Deal with the issue or be honest and say you can't.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Whatever, johnfolton, you think this is ...... it is not the answer you need to provide. It is no answer at all. IF???You are still trying to advance your pawn, this forfeits the game when your king is in check. Please deal with the reality here:Science shows a correlation of age against climate and 14C dating with overlaps between three different systems -- each one correlating with climate, age and 14C -- and resulting in an age in excess of 45,000 years.One involves a tree, a Bristlecone Pine (not a "ponderosa", johnfolton, please use enough of the information provided to at least give the impression you are paying attention, eh? - otherwise one could get the impression that you are having trouble assimilating the information for some reason), that is high and dry on the top of the sierra nevadas, and thus has no way of having any of the 14C atoms being "leached" - by some mysterious under-defined underwater process - out of all the trees used (at exactly the same rate in each tree), while providing an unbroken chronology of tree rings that correlate with the decay rate for 14C to match those actual tree ring dates (and which you seem to accept as valid dates, yes?).The second involves a European Oak (again, still not a "ponderosa pine"), that are found often in bogs and digs underwater, thus being subject to being "leached" - by whatever mysterious under-defined underwater process you are still asserting indiscriminately and arbitrarily for the Lake Suigetsu varves - and yet they show no such effect on their correlations between their tree rings, climate and 14C age within the total population of trees used in that chronology, AND that still correlate exactly with the climate and 14C age for the Bristlecone Pine for the same tree ring age (thus invalidating any effect of "leaching" on those specimens), so you need to explain how your mysterious under-defined underwater process causes "leaching" in one underwater sample and not in another, (as well as explain the correlations of age and climate and 14C age for these two different chronologies).Even if you agree that the ages of both these tree ring chronologies are correct, correct for age, correct for climate and correct for 14C dating, you still need to explain the LACK of leaching for the European Oak specimens.The third involves the Lake Suigetsu varves ... which also match the two tree ring chronologies for climate and 14C correlations for the duration of the overlapped sections. Layers that just keep on going, deeper and deeper, yet with the same appearance of clay and diatoms layer after layer, with thicknesses that correlate with climate, and with the 14C age from decay.But the lake varves do not need to be tied to the tree ring chronologies -- we can still look at them as a totally independent system and evaluate their relative dating correlations: every time we count down 5715 clay\diatom layers we find an organic sample with 1/2 the 14C of the starting layer -- the ratio of 14C to 12C in each of the organic samples found correlate to the decay quantity that is left after the passage of the same number of years as the clay\diatom layers.One is linear, the other is exponential, and they match as they should for the decay and age differences.
You don't answer this with "well if the sky was red, ... and pluto was the sun, jupiter was aligned with mars, and trees flew ..."You answer this with a specific mechanism that actually works and that explains precisely how the 14C is always 1/2 at each 5715 layer increments. But don't you see that it ISN'T really a problem at all? There is absolutely no reason in the data to stop the correlation at any point.UNTIL you can show some method to make the data APPEAR to be annual rings, COMPLETE with calculations that show the ACTUAL (by your method) age to be what you claim, all your handwaving and "whatifs" don't amount to a hill of beans.I don't need to make any assumptions of age or anything, just look at what the evidence shows.The evidence shows a chronology that matches linear age of varve layers with decay age of 14C, thus I have two independent systems that agree on the ages of the layers.Why should I assume anything else? Especially something based in nothing more solid than wishful thinking? The organic samples tested from the lake have not been "bacterially digested" -- they are still identifiable as leaves and twigs and the like. This also does not explain the existence of the diatom layers. Why would they? More to the point HOW COULD THEY?Everytime we try this by shaking up and liquefying similar samples they do NOT form magical alternating layers like this, so until you have some mechanism to make it happen it would be absolutely foolish to assume that something happens that has never been observed in such a situation.You also are not reading the article -- the clay is there in the water constantly, as part of the sediment load from the runoff into the lake, it is there in the summer and there in the winter, and it is constantly settling down to the bottom of the lake. What is NOT constant is the bloom and death of the diatoms with the summer\winter seasons, and when they die they fall to the bottom of the lake. The reason there are distinct layers is because the diatoms start and stop and start and stop on an annual basis, but the clay is a constant settling action. The only reason there are layers of clay is because during the winter months there are no diatoms falling to the bottom and the predominant sediment is the clay, and it has enough time to make a layer.Thus you have two parts for your puzzle: diatoms separated into annual layers, but clay NOT sorted. Have fun.Annual layers explains it, it is observed, it is the same layer to layer to layer as far as the core samples extend. Carbon 14 age dating confirm it. Again, you have absolutely NO MECHANISM for this behavior, it has not been observed in any experiments, and there is absolutely no reason to assume something happens in the face of evidence that it doesn't. That is fantasy and not science.The methane transport model you proposed does not answer the questions of (1) how does the 14C get removed from the dead organic specimens in preference to 12C in the lower layers, and (2) how does it then get injected into upper layer dead organic specimens, when in both cases the atoms are bonded in molecules in both specimens. Any methane gas would just pass by all such specimens without affecting them.To say nothing of the fact there is no methane gas in the lake varve chronology.You also have a severe problem in your fantasy model of an extreme overabundance of 14C that you need to dispose of. At the level of annual lake varves for a 40,000 year old 14C age you have 1% of the 14C that you have in a current specimen: if these are really only 11,000 years old (lets say 11,430 just for yucks okay? == two half lives of 14C) they should have 25% of the 14C that you have in a current sampleIf you remove 24% of the 14C from the lower specimens (to "correct" their age) and transport it up and INTO the upper specimens and keep doing this for all the specimens that are in between that layer and the top, then you must have some specimens near the surface that will have WAY MORE than 100% of the 14C that they should have, and be dated into the future ... by multiples of thousands of years.There is no excess of 14C in the upper level varves, not in the samples and not in the sediments. No I am not factoring in anything that your imagination can dream up. I am observing the mechanisms that are shown by the evidence, measuring the ages of the layers by counting, measuring the layers by the decay of 14C, and then seeing IF they correlate. Gosh: they do. Not just with age but with climate too.This means it is NOT MY JOB to factor in all the fevered little things you can frantically imagine in your desperate attempts to support a fantasy -- my "job" was done when they correlated, as nothing else needed to be explained. They didn't have to correlate: they could have been all over the map on the chart; they could have been asymptotic at 11,000 years; but they weren't, they correlated in a straight line between the linear age of layers and the exponential age of organic specimens with 14C decay..It is YOUR job to show HOW your fantasy frantic imaginations can actually physically practically and completely explain the observed data down to the proper percentages of 14C for each and every layer in the core data.You haven't done that. That is what you need to do to protect your king. You are still trying to move that pawn forward, and it don't work that way. As such your whole post is garbage in and garbage out -- a total waste of bandwidth.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

whatever else you think you are doing, this has nothing to do with dealing with the facts. I trust you realize that as (1) this "spike" is the delta between the theoretical level (the 45^o line representing no change in atmospheric 14C levels) and (b) that the real level is below the theoretical,... that this represents a relatively lower 14C level compared to surrounding values, but one still in line with the overall trend of correlation.And this: ... is just more unsubstantiated blather, fantasy thinking, if not delusional, having no bearing on the argument.Nor does it deal with the problems noted with all your fantasy scenarios. It was not a methane lake study, it was a marine coast study. Please try to keep your grasp on reality strong enough to at least use the proper information in your wild leaps of fantasy.Seeing as no 14C was discussed in the study it does nothing of the kind. If there is no 14C involved in the carbon being used to generate the methane then it can do nothing to preferentially affect 14C compared to 12C -- and the methane in the study did not mention any measurable levels of 14C even though they used it -- injected\added it -- to mark the consumption of methane by the microbes in question.As background 14C would have biased that study, one can readily conclude that the levels of 14C in the methane involve was unmeasurable -- that it was from another old marine carbon resevoir depleted of 14C by years of radioactive decay (and an absence of radioactivity induced 14C - the other poisoned well of your fantasy world).There is also no record of methane bubbles in Lake Suigetsu -- or on top of the Sierra Nevadas where the Bristlecone Pines live(d). LOL. This, of course has no bearing on the levels of 14C in dead organic matter -- neither CO₂ nor CH₄ (methane) can significantly affect the proportion of 14C to 12C in dead organic specimens that have the carbon atoms bonded to other atoms, a point you have still to address in any kind of detail.Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.