Carbon dating of dinosaur bones

DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIAL FOUND
Contents:


  1. ‘Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones less than 40,000 years old’ report scrapped from conference website
  2. Carbon dating dinosaur bones
  3. Considering Contamination
  4. LATEST NEWS ON ASTEROIDS
What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness

There are two possibilities here to explain what is happening. One explanation is that somehow organic matter truly survives millions of years and we did not know it. The other more reasonable explanation is that these bones are not million years old and that the method used to determine that million year age is flawed.

Our research at the paleo group shows that the age determing method is in error. We have carbon dated dinosaur bones from all over the world and they all have easily measurable amounts of Carbon 14 in them. This proves that the bones are only thousands and not millions of years old. If one does exhaustive research on dating methods one finds that carbon dating is more reliable more studied more widely used than any other dating method.

‘Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones less than 40,000 years old’ report scrapped from conference website

It can also be cross checked by using historical data such as tree ring counting. Dating methods that give ages in millions of years are more in doubt if one carefully studys the methods and assumptions. Our research has been largely ignored and mainstream science has even refused to test our results by trying their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. This is not the scientific way, ignoring new information because it does not fit your present ideas!! They have even refused to publish our findings in America. Our team published a paper in Scientific article on dating dinosaur bones in Germany and in the National Research Council of Italy in Scientists have discovered a very large asteroid impact site in Antarctica.

As little as years ago mainstream English speaking scientist did not believe that stones fell from the sky contrary to all the anecdotal evidence over the past centuries. Asteroids are usually referred to as being a solid rock from outer space whereas comets are usually a mixture of ice and rock and typically burn up before hitting the earth. In a large something from outer space destroyed thousands of acres of forest in Tunguska.

Scientist for the last hundred years have been searching for a crator or remnants of space rock. Finally in scientist think they have found an impact site at the bottom of a nearby lake Cheko. Whats at the bottom might be shattered rocks or impact melt or maybe a piece of meteorite.

National Geographic reports that scientist Dallas Abbott from Columbia University has been gathering data and announcing for the past ten years that a giant tsunami deposited ocean floor sediment on Madigascar.

Carbon dating dinosaur bones

The sediments cover an area 2 times the size of Manhattan and are over feet tall. Somewhere in the Indian ocean is thought to be where the giant asteroid struck that produced this giant wave. More shocking is the fact that the microfossils in this sediment were dated to less than 7, years ago. The really disturbing conclusion is that civilization destroying bolides such as these have happened not millions of years ago but thousands of years ago. We agree with Dallas Abbott that dangerous meteors have struck the earth in recent times and that the governments of the world should be aware of this fact.

In northern Arizona is a large Meteor Crater, the Barringer Crater, Its well preserved shape suggests a very recent origin. During the last years numerous attempts have been made to determine when this event happened. The age of this event has varied from years ago to , years ago.

It all depends on what age determination method is used and what assumptions are made using the method. The Hopi Indians who live in that area have legends about the meteor's impact.

Considering Contamination

Since they would have been living in the area at the time to have observed and passed on a tradition of the event for posterity, that would limit the impact to less than 10, years ago. It is thought by some to have been the cause of the death of the dinosaurs. Since that is the case if in fact these dinosaurs died as a result of the asteroid hit at Chicxulub then the asteroid hit also only thousands of years ago!


  • The research by Miller et al.?
  • hispanic online dating.
  • How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?.
  • CARBON 14 DATING DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS?
  • Dating Sedimentary Rock - How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones? | HowStuffWorks?

Numerous unpetrified dinosuar bones found in Mesozoic strata have been dated and average 31, radio carbon years old. The Mesozoic strata was laid down at the same time as the dinosaur bones and are the same age. This strata contains hundreds of asteroids which have been identified thus far. Now that we know the strata they struck is tens of thousands of years old and not millions of years old, we can see that asteroids arrive at a rate around times higher than previously projected.

Its arrival was caught on video. The impact was calculated as the equivalent of a blast of , tons of TNT. It shattered windows and damaged over 3, buildings and injured people. It could have been a lot worse of course. It points out the imminent danger of another large meteorite or asteroid from outer space wiping out possibly whole civilizations.

An Asteroid labled tc-4 will supposedly miss the earth by miles on October 12,13 of That is terribly close. If that asteroid hit earth the damage would depend on several factors: Consider an asteroid YU55 which came near the earth in If it had struck in the ocean a sunami 60 feet high might have been generated. It is estimated that first degree burns from the fireball would have afflicted people within 60 miles. Could these asteroids have caused the earth to crack and continents to move?

What caused the continents to separate and created many of the mountain ranges of the world. Slowly drifting continents have been the usual explanation for the past 50 years and is generally referred to as Plate Tectonics Theory. That idea was proposed in but was not accepted by the scientific community until 50 years later. 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 this 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 methods , at some age which is a lot below the 'usual' i.

The age that 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 CRSEF, 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 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. 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 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: Consequently equally small quantities of modern carbon can severely skew the measurements.

LATEST NEWS ON ASTEROIDS

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 dated , 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.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue -Hear Evolusionist Refuse To Carbon Date Dinosaur

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 this claim was still out there. Got any other questions on radiometric dating? Thank you for 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.