Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games around 68 million years Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games. Consider the C decay rate.
The theoretical limit for C dating isyears using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45, to 55, years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C left in them. Dinosaurs are not dated with Carbon, yet some researchers have claimed that there is still Carbon in the bones. So what needs to be done about this inconsistency?
Do these Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games indicate that a more accurate method needs to be derived? What solutions are available for increasing accuracy of the tests? Or do we need another dating method all together? From the source linked above:. Carbon is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique. It's accuracy has been verified by using C to date artifacts whose age is known historically.
The fluctuation of the amount of C in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore.
He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination.
That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry AMS tests of collagen and bioapatite hard carbonate bone mineral with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs.
These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C unlikely". There is a lot of discussion about this issue on Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games internet, so I think this question may be worth addressing seriously.
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 Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games the 'usual' i.
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games these groups claim to find is usually on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old. The particular example you bring up is one of the most famous such cases. The claims are really quite spectacular, when taken at face value, and therefore should be examined thoroughly.
In this answer, I will try to go through this story in great detail, hopefully exposing the reasons why this work is not taken seriously by scientists. A research team from the or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, led by Hugh Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old.
Let's look at research methodology in detail by bullet points:. As it turns out, Miller's research group obtained their sample in quite a remarkable way. In fact, the creationist posed as chemists in order to secure a number of fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from a museum of natural history, misrepresenting their own research in the process of doing so.
When the museum provided the bone fragments, they emphasized that they had been heavily contaminated with "shellac" and other chemical preservatives.
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
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games 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. Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games, of raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now. At a horizon of 40, years the Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games of Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games 14 in a bone or a piece of charcoal can be truly minute: Consequently equally small quantities of modern carbon can severely skew the measurements.
Contamination of this kind amounting to 1 percent Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games the carbon in a sample 25, Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games 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 Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games 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 Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games 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
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games in the water, implying Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games 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 Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games refuses to reveal where some other samples of theirs were datedbut I think it is pointless to argue further: It is obvious that the CRSEF research group did a poor job in
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games 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. I know this was incredibly simple and largely unscientific, but I'm dealing only with your creationist claim. I didn't know Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games claim was still out there. Got any other questions on radiometric dating? Thank you
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site the association bonus does not count.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead? 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? Considering Contamination From the source linked above: Decrypted 1 1 The main point of the debate seems to be the following: Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games research by Miller et al.
Let's look at their research methodology in detail indicated by bullet points: What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness After the samples were submitted by
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games 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: 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: Conclusions At this point, it is quite clear that there is little Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games to trust the research by Miller's research group. Danu 13k 8 54 I'm not sure why we
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs games to answer. Creationists demonstrably don't care about the facts. I'd be honestly surprised if this wasn't a troll. Goodies It's probably good to have an in-depth, serious discussion about why one shouldn't believe these guys.
This answer provides no solution for increasing accuracy of the tests. Onlyheisgood The point is not that the method is wrong. 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.
So what research is being done to correct such an obvious dating flaw? The flaw is with creationists. We've been trying to educate creationists for decades now, but willful ignorance in favor of adhering to tradition and presuppositions is far stronger than anything that can be taught.
Using this data, can a more accurate method be derived? We have dozens of independent dating methods that have accurately dated the layers of dinosaur fossils to a very high degree of accuracy. Carbon dating is very accurate.