The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon is only 5, years, so carbon dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50, years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old - some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life.
So why did two chairmen of the Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore delete one of the oral-presentation reports from their official website?
What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness
They gave no warning to the Paleochronology group. The whole report was just deleted from public view, with no online explanation. Notice the absence of report number five in the above image from the official conference web site. The Paleochronology group asked for an explanation; they were given the following:. No explanation is given by these two chairmen.
Science, meaning real science, thrives in details. Raw censorship in this deletion of an abstract-that deserves an investigation. Typical error potential listed for the above C testing is only a few centuries but sometimes even less than one century. Notice how greatly the above data vary from the millions-of-years figures commonly proclaimed in Western media and textbooks.
Radiocarbon dating of dinosaur fossils has generally not been done until recent years, for the great majority of scientists had assumed such testing would be pointless.
Feb 07, Radiocarbon dating is the most accurate and most verifiable of the radiometric dating systems Sad to report: Because so many paleontologists have so long assumed that all dinosaurs became extinct many million years old, the abstract of the report by the Paleochronology group was censured, deleted from the conference website because they. Radiocarbon (RC) or Carbon (C) dating of linen, cotton, bones, fossils, wood, sea shells, seeds, coal, diamond (anything with carbon) is one of the most common and well understood of the various scientific dating methods. Carbon is a radioactive isotope of carbon that is formed naturally in the atmosphere. Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Dinosaurs are not dated with Carbon, the supposed chemists was. In particular, it is implausible that it would have been considered worthwhile to try to use radiocarbon dating methods on these bones.
Carbon should not exist in dinosaur bones, for it should have decayed away millions of years ago. But that idea comes from the assumption that those creatures actually lived millions of years ago, an assumption now challenged by other scientists. Those astonishing data give a clue why the research report was censored: It was revolutionary in a way that those two chairmen did not like.
Feb 01, The recent discovery of radiocarbon in dinosaur bones at first seems incompatible with an age of millions of years, due to the short half-life of radiocarbon. However, evidence from isotopes other than radiocarbon shows that dinosaur fossils are indeed millions of years old. Fossil bone incorporates new radiocarbon by means of recrystallization and, in some cases, Author: Philip J. Senter.
Dinosaurs have been carbon dated to much more recently. Carbon Dating and Dinosaurs. Radiocarbon dating is the most accurate and most verifiable of the radiometric dating systems. Sad to report: Because so many paleontologists have so long assumed that all dinosaurs became extinct many million years old, the abstract of the report by the Paleochronology group was censured, deleted from the conference website because they did not like to consider such an apparently revolutionary discovery.
Decide for yourself if this is a case of censorship.
Radiocarbon Dating of Dinosaur Fossils. Carbon dating was recently performed on dinosaur fossils,1 and the results were presented at the Western Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, Augusta gathering of approximately two thousand scientists.
Radiocarbon dating dinosaurs
Miller and his group accepted the samples and reassured the museum that such containments would not be problematic for the analysis at hand. They then sent it to a laboratory run by the University of Arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out. To get the scientists to consider their sample, the researchers once again pretended to be interested in the dating for general chemical analysis purposes, misrepresenting their research.
Let's take a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research. It is understandable that Miller et al. Thus, it appears that Miller et al. This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now.
At a horizon of 40, years the amount of carbon 14 in a bone or a piece of charcoal can be truly minute: such a specimen may contain only a few thousand 14C atoms. Consequently equally small quantities of modern carbon can severely skew the measurements. Contamination of this kind amounting to 1 percent of the carbon in a sample 25, years old would make it appear to be about 1, years younger than its actual age. Such contamination would, however, reduce the apparent age of a 60,year-old object by almost 50 percent.
Clearly proper sample decontamination procedures are of particular importance in the dating of very old artifacts. It is clear that the sample provided by Miller did not under go any 'sample decontamination procedures' at all, and it is therefore strongly questionable to which extent it can be used to obtain a good estimate of the age of the bones.
Furthermore, it appears less than certain that the carbon found in the bones actually had anything to do with them being dinosaur bones. In the article by Leppert, we find:. Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the elemental analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils. The predominant suite of elements present and their relative percentages including the 3. There is absolutely nothing unusual about these fossils and no reason to think the carbon contained in them is organic carbon derived from the original dinosaur bone.
They were, in fact, not bone. These results corroborated established paleontological theories that assert that these fossiles presumably were 'washed away' over long periods of time by ground water, replacing the original bones with other substances such as the minerals naturally present in the water, implying that this sample could not tell you anything about when a dinosaur lived or rather, died.
At this point, it is quite clear that there is little reason to trust the research by Miller's research group. In fact, the article by Leppert raises a number of additional issues e.
Miller's group refuses to reveal where some other samples of theirs were date but I think it is pointless to argue further: It is obvious that the CRSEF research group did a poor job in sticking to the scientific method, and that little objective value can be assigned to their supposed findings. I actually happen to know something about the "Miller Tale" as it is called.
Miller "borrowed" some dinosaur bones from a museum without telling the curators or owners what he was actually intending on doing with it.
I'll tell you why. The dinosaur bones did NOT have any carbon in them. They'd been essentially completely replaced by minerals during the fossilization process. What happened was that Miller did NOT know that they were covered in a preservative made of an organic material called shellac, which is organic so it's full of carbon.
This contaminated the result. What they got was a date for the shellac, not the dinosaur fossils.
How Carbon Dating Works
I know this was incredibly simple and largely unscientific, but I'm dealing only with your creationist claim. I didn't know this claim was still out there. Got any other questions on radiometric dating? Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Is it a problem with radiometric dating that carbon 14 is found in materials dated to millions of years old? Ask Question. Asked 5 years, 4 months ago.
Active 4 years, 6 months ago. Viewed 23k times. Considering Contamination From the source linked above : Carbon is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique. Decrypted Decrypted 1 1 gold badge 2 2 silver badges 7 7 bronze badges.
Active Oldest Votes. The main point of the debate seems to be the following: Over the past decades, several research groups of self-proclaimed creationist scientists have claimed discoveries of dinosaur bones that they have managed to date, using radiocarbon dating methodsat some age which is a lot below the 'usual' i.
Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes. These are chemical elements, like carbon or uranium, that are identical except for one key feature - the number of neutrons in their nucleus. Atoms may have an equal number of Author: Tracy V. Wilson. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14 C/ 12 C 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, which removed virtually all living carbon from the biosphere through burial. The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. The half-life of carbon is only 5, years, so carbon dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50, years old.3/5(3).
The research by Miller et al. Let's look at their research methodology in detail indicated by bullet points : As it turns out, Miller's research group obtained their sample in quite a remarkable way.
What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness After the samples were submitted by the laboratory, Miller et al. Miller let assured the professor that the analysis was still of interest to the group. The issue of contaminations is quite a serious one, as can be seen in this paper by Hedges and Gowlett sorry, paywalled!!!
I quote quote also reproduced in the paper by Lepper that I linked earlier : At a horizon of 40, years the amount of carbon 14 in a bone or a piece of charcoal can be truly minute: such a specimen may contain only a few thousand 14C atoms. Clearly proper sample decontamination procedures are of particular importance in the dating of very old artifacts It is clear that the sample provided by Miller did not under go any 'sample decontamination procedures' at all, and it is therefore strongly questionable to which extent it can be used to obtain a good estimate of the age of the bones.
In the article by Leppert, we find: Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the elemental analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils. Conclusions At this point, it is quite clear that there is little reason to trust the research by Miller's research group. Danu Danu Creationists demonstrably don't care about the facts. I'd be honestly surprised if this wasn't a troll. It just appears that these people tried to apply the method - doing so in a very sloppy way, as I showed - for which is is of no use.