myfirstmeet.date.

Radiocarbon Dating Is Useful For Dating Dinosaur Fossils. Marital Hookup!

Dating Dating Useful Dinosaur Fossils For Radiocarbon Is

FOSSILS: how fossils are dated

Absolute Dating

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, In particular, it is implausible that it would have been considered worthwhile to try to use radiocarbon dating methods on these bones, since the rocks that they. Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. To determine the age of a dinosaur fossil, carbon dating can never be used. Carbon only works for fossils less than 75, years old. By the time a dinosaur fossil was found, any carbon the organism would have taken up and incorporated into its tissues during its life. There are two main methods determining a fossils age, relative dating and absolute dating. Relative dating is used to determine a fossils approximate age by comparing it to similar rocks and fossils of known ages. Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of a fossil by using radiometric dating to measure the.

The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method. And the result of this accepted method dates dinosaur fossils to here 68 million years old. 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?

Carbon, Radiometric Dating - CSI

Do these data 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.

Radiocarbon Dating Is Useful For Dating Dinosaur Fossils

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 click 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, Radiocarbon Dating Is Useful For Dating Dinosaur Fossils radiocarbon dating methodsat 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 Radiocarbon Dating Is Useful For Dating Dinosaur Fossils 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 How To Send A Message A Site by the University of Arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out.

To learn more here 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.

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:.

You are commenting using your WordPress. No, his objection was that the Paleochronology group was using the reports as evidence that dinosaurs lived thousands, here millions, of years ago. Caron dated dinosaur bones - under 40, years old. In fact, if the entire earth were solid carbon, in a million years so much would have decayed that there would not be even a single atom of carbon left. If they assume that the ratios in the past were the same as they are today, then they can estimate how long ago those creatures died.

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.

Dinosaurs supposedly died out 65 million years ago. Posted on June 23, 3 Comments. Steede tap danced around the implications, embarrassingly embracing the human figurine as credible, while waltzing past the dinosaur figurine, claiming the laboratory test must not have given a true reading.

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 datedbut 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. 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 read more this site the association bonus does not count.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Radiocarbon Dating Is Useful For Dating Dinosaur Fossils

Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered. Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute: Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers continue reading voted up and rise to the top. 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 7. The main point of the debate seems to be the following: The research by Miller et al.

FOSSILS: how fossils are dated

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 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 click here, 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 reason to trust the research by Miller's research group. I'm not sure why we bothered to answer.

Carbon dating dinosaur bones

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 link. Radiocarbon Dating Is Useful For Dating Dinosaur Fossils 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?