Carbondated dinosaur bones are less than 40, years old. Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and DNA fragments in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon C dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22, to 39, years old. Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some could tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors.
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). 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. Jun 05, Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material. But new research shows that commonly accepted radiocarbon dating Author: Daniel Aloi.
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: 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.
Dinosaur radiocarbon dating
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. 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.
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. Thank you for taking your time to send in your valued opinion to Science X editors.
You can be assured our editors closely monitor every feedback sent and will take appropriate actions. Your opinions are important to us.
We do not guarantee individual replies due to extremely high volume of correspondence. E-mail the story Research illuminates inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating Your friend's email Your email I would like to subscribe to Science X Newsletter.
Learn more Your name Note Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email.
Researchers recently presented at a geophysics conference in Singapore radiocarbon dating results of dinosaur bones ranging from 22, to 39, .
Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.
How can radioactivity be used to determine the age of a rock?
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. 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.e. mainstream accepted date for the age of these bones (several dozens of million years old). The age. Scientists can't tell whether the clock ran down a few days or millions of years ago. This means that isotopes with a short half-life won't work to date dinosaur bones. The short half-life is only part of the problem when dating dinosaur bones - researchers also have to find enough of the parent and daughter atoms to butterfishny.com: Tracy V. Wilson.
Credit: Cornell University. Juniperus phoenicea sample from Taybet Zaman, Jordan. Juniperus phoenicea doors and pivot at Taybet Zaman, Jordan. Explore further. More information: Sturt W. Manning et al, Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: Provided by Cornell University. This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission.
The content is provided for information purposes only.
How Carbon Dating Works
Multitasking in the workplace can lead to negative emotions 1 hour ago. Relevant PhysicsForums posts Mw 6. Samalas eruption in 22 hours ago. Wind Box May 08, Volcanic Ash Clouds - Why do they flatten at certain altitudes when rising?
May 02, New Geological Map of Mars Apr 27, Related Stories. Climate change caused empire's fall, tree rings reveal May 15, Feb 11, Jun 17, Aug 16, Jul 20, Recommended for you.