Carbon 14 and Dinosaur Bones | ttyule.info
Carbon 14 in Dinosaurs at the American Geophysical Conference in Singapore: On how to date a dinosaur, Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart interviews Hugh. Direct Radiometric Dating of Dinosaur Bones Dinosaurs and pterosaurs, we have long been taught, became extinct many millions of years ago. But what happens if you date them using carbon dating, which is But some scientists have applied carbon dating to dinosaur bones.
Based on the analysis of these samples, scientists estimate that the Earth itself is about 4. In addition, the oldest known moon rocks are 4. Since the moon and the Earth probably formed at the same time, this supports the current idea of the Earth's age.
Carbon dating dinosaur bones
You can learn more about fossils, dinosaurs, radiometric dating and related topics by reading through the links below. Other Dating Methods Radiometric dating isn't the only method of determining the age of rocks.
Other techniques include analyzing amino acids and measuring changes in an object's magnetic field. Scientists have also made improvements to the standard radiometric measurements. For example, by using a laser, researchers can measure parent and daughter atoms in extremely small amounts of matter, making it possible to determine the age of very small samples [source: A second experiment, beginning as above, would be to date a small diameter bone and a larger diameter bone from the same dinosaur.
Getting the same dates would help rule out contamination because the smaller bone will have a larger surface to volume ratio which, if contamination were a significant factor, should result in higher percentages of modern carbon.
- Main Navigation
- What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness
- Previous Broadcasts
A third experiment that could falsify contamination as a possible source of 14c involves: With the announcement that these reserves in Siberia contain diamonds that are "twice as hard as normal", these will be ideal for 14c dating because their natural hardness would further rule out contamination. Also, evolutionary geologists claim that these diamonds were already ancient when, allegedly 35 million years ago, a meteor impacted above them.
The evolutionary model predicts no carbon dead 14c. The young earth model predicts significant quantities of 14c measurable throughout the diamond. A fourth experiment that could falsify contamination as a possible source of 14c involves radiocarbon dating of allegedly million-year-old amber, by selecting pristine specimens, the condition of which may also help to rule out contamination.
How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?
At the 7th ICC Dr. Dating bones in situ, and dating their surrounding matrix, will elimate various sources of possible contamination and provide significant additional data.
Published by RSR on Aug. Consider then, the fossil remains of organisms that had lived near the surface but that have been long buried in ocean sediments. If neutron capture were responsible for much of the unexpected 14c, then collectively, such ocean specimens, collectively, should have far less 14c than specimens excavated on the continents.
Further, more analysis should be done on relevant specimens excavated from uranium minescomparing their radiocarbon percentages to similar in type and estimated date specimens gathered away from uranium mines.
Thus, marine deposit specimens and uranium mine specimens can function as control groups. Regardless though, for an uncontaminated specimen like diamonds, pure collagen, dinosaur soft tissue, etc.
Out of every trillion Carbon atoms in the atmosphere, only about one is 14c.
Dating Dinosaurs With Carbon – Dinosaurs and Pterosaurs Alive
Further, significant unknowns, both in the rates of 14c production in the atmosphere, and in the Earth's enormous geologic upheaval in the past, could have altered the 1,,to-1 ratio.
Henry Richterthe NASA scientist who launched our first satellite, oversaw development of the scientific equipment used on the first lunar missions, and who played an important role in the early discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt. By the way, Dr. Though it may be an extremely negligible source, of the various emissions from radioactive decay alpha particles, beta particles, etc.
If you know of a web page where this is described, please email that link to Bob kgov. Also, as only widely recognized inlightning can produce 14c. We have a young earth! Long-term, authoritative, and worldwide measurements show that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly as NASA's data shows is also true of Mercury.
Our planet's more powerful magnetic field in the past better shielded Earth from cosmic rays, resulting in less Carbon production. This means that carbon ages of specimens from past millennia and even from only centuries ago need to be adjusted downward.
So apart from adjustment for the exponentially decaying magnetic field, specimens are therefore younger than their radiocarbon age indicates.
For, living with a stronger field, plants and animals absorbed less radiocarbon. So, in addition to the evidence for rapid radioactive decay at the time of the global flood, the Earth's decaying magnetic field means that specimens are generally younger than claimed by Carbon dating. This effect may be significant going back even only to the time of Christ, and might also be a factor in why 14c dating of the artifacts of the Pharaohs were not as helpful as had been hoped for in resolving debates in chronology among Egyptologists.
RSR predicts that even allegedly million-year-old amber will show significant quantities of modern carbon.
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. Conclusions 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.