C14 dating of dinosaur bones

in fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. they first seized upon schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. the research team sampled dinosaur bones from eight specimens, perhaps further research needs to be undertaken to confirm this crucial research. sellers work has been subjected to "sufficient" peer review and should be accepted as is, and further that this work has some groundbreaking relevance to age determination of dinosaur fossils. it a problem with radiometric dating that carbon 14 is found in materials dated to millions of years old? said the motivation for their research on dinosaur bones was these recent unexpected finds:+c14 has been reported from mesozoic, paleozoid carbonaceous earth materials. the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. from louis jacobs, southern methodist university, former president of the society of vertebrate paleontology:Co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs. the dinosaur ages now be said to be precisely what the carbon-14 dating results indicated? what they got was a date for the shellac, not the dinosaur fossils. creationists doing radiometric dating are similar to terrorists flying airplanes----the goal is to crash, not do arrive safely at a destination. initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs. sellers' work to the actual age determination of dinosaurs, his method is simply the wrong tool for the job. growing up in helena, montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs. far as anyone can tell, schweitzer was right: bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. frozen musk ox found at fairbanks creek, alaska, had scalp muscle tissue 24,000 years old and hair 17,200 years old according to carbon-14 dating.

C14 dating of dinosaur bones

Radiometric dating of dinosaur bones

1991, schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old t.. k-ar dates are given, this comes from dating nearby volcanic outflows or ashfalls.” finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. the chemical makeup of proteins changes through evolution, scientists can study protein sequences to learn more about how dinosaurs evolved. 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). team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 western pacific geophysics meeting in singapore, august 13–17, at which they gave 14c dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. before female birds start to lay eggs, they form a calcium-rich structure called medullary bone on the inside of their leg and other bones; they draw on it during the breeding season to make eggshells.-14 dating was recently performed on dinosaur fossils,1 and the results were presented at the western geophysics meeting in singapore, august 2012, a gathering of approximately two thousand scientists. that statement would be true if the dinosaurs were really millions of years old. wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s jurassic park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from dna preserved in amber. findings about dinosaur fossils are just a piece of the evidence indicating assumed ages are perhaps mistaken. of the report’s physicist co-authors, professor dr robert bennett and dr jean de pontcharra, till recently with the french atomic energy commission’s grenoble research centre, are urging colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. after all, even though these ages are much younger than conventional ages, many creationists believe life on earth to be much younger than even the reported carbon-14 ages of these dinosaur fossils. schweitzer and wittmeyer have been using antibodies to chicken collagen, cow elastin and ostrich hemoglobin to search for similar molecules in the dinosaur tissue. were informed by a professor from the university of arizona that the samples were heavily contaminated, and that no collagen (where most of the carbon for $^{14}\text{c}$ dating comes from) was present. dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old.


Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones

and because proteins do all the work in the body, studying them could someday help scientists understand dinosaur physiology—how their muscles and blood vessels worked, for example. no portuguese paleontologist uses radiocarbon dating when studying dinosaurs fossils. in 2001, they encased a section of the dinosaur and the surrounding dirt in plaster to protect it. 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. and when did you guys begin to trust the results that carbon-14 dating yields anyway? release “dinosaur bones’ carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years—censored international conference report” and additional information, newgeology..The point here is that the evidence of carbon-14 dating presented above is not the only evidence indicating that currently accepted dates for dinosaur and other fossils might be wrong.” the observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. but if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14c left in them. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. creation magazine claimed that schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. what does it say about science if dating something as 65 million years old when it is less then 100,000 years old becomes an acceptable margin of error? of galena removed t years ago using pb-pb dating2why does radiometric dating tell us the ages of rocks? on countless occasions, experts have dated dinosaur fossils at 60 million years or more. are not dated with carbon-14, yet some researchers have claimed that there is still carbon-14 in the bones. wouldn’t the dinosaurs be too old for carbon-14 dating to work on them?

How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?

the public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth. the extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones. this is not predicted by conventional evolutionary theory; and other discoveries have been made concerning dinosaurs which also are not predicted by evolutionary theory such as the discovery of soft tissue in bones that are not or are only partially fossilized. and the result of this accepted method dates dinosaur fossils to around 68 million years old. how long could the organisms keep on living after they were cut off from everything except the finite nutrients in the dinosaur? unfortunately, as i said, the ignorance of creationists does not constitute evidence against radiometric dating by any stretch of the imagination. miller h, owen h, bennett r, de pontcharra j, giretych m, taylor j, van oosterwych m, kline o, wilder d, dunkel b (2012 aug 15) a comparison of δ13c & pmc values for ten cretaceous-jurassic dinosaur bones from texas to alaska usa, china and europe, asia oceania geosciences society (aogs) - american geophysical union (agu) joint assembly, resorts world convention center, singapore, 15 august, 2012. supposedly formed even further back in the past than dinosaurs —over a billion years ago.! we have dozens of independent dating methods that have accurately dated the layers of dinosaur fossils to a very high degree of accuracy. but i also can't help notice how a discussion about whether dino bones are old or not, based on evidence, suddenly swings to a sermon about worldviews--which is what it's all about anyway. compared to the conventional theory of dinosaurs’ being at minimum 65 million years old, the time it would take soft tissue to degrade and the < 50,000 year ages reported from carbon-14 dating are less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the expected age for the dinosaur fossils. so whatever these gents might be saying about 14c, they are not touching the conventional wisdom about dinosaur antiquity. fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. they aren't really dating the dinosaur bones, but only the contamination. why do they think creationists encourage them to do their own radio carbon research on dinosaur bones? it appears that the researchers approached the matter with considerable professionalism, including taking great pains to eliminate contamination with modern carbon as a source of the 14c signal in the bones.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

work does not however have any relevance whatsoever to the actual age of the specimens or the efficacy of radiometric dating..If the conventionally accepted age of dinosaurs is wrong, then what about other conventionally accepted dates? recently presented at a geophysics conference in Singapore radiocarbon dating results of dinosaur bones ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years old, which have since been censored. but, if they were not that old, merely thousands of years old, then carbon-14 dating applied to dinosaur fossils might detect some carbon-14 atoms. however, i am even more excited at the anticipated c14 dating of a chunk of soft tissue from a triceratops which chunk is in the possession of our friends in the creation research society, and to my knowledge it is going to be carefully analyzed for. schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors., 2013joe spears msdinosaursfossilsradioactive decayradiometric datingdinosaurs supposedly died out 65 million years ago. below is a list of some dinosaur fossils and their dated ages from the miller paper., most dinosaur fossils themselves are not dateable by any of the radiometric methods normally used to obtain 'millions of years', since they mostly don't contain radioactive isotopes. and the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both. Sedimentary Rock - Scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones by dating the fossils and the surrounding rocks. by using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them. the finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. miller "borrowed" some dinosaur bones from a museum without telling the curators or owners what he was actually intending on doing with it. the reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14c/12c ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the industrial revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. an ignorant creationist who lacks an understanding of radiometric dating does not constitute evidence against a well-established and well-understood process.Best dating sites in australia forum

Radiocarbon in dino bones

now, it is known that $^{14}\text{c}$ decays at a fast enough rate (half-life ~6000 years) for this dating method to be absolutely useless on such samples. the theoretical limit for c-14 dating is 100,000 years using ams, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. of the report’s physicist co-authors … are urging colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. at an october 2005 paleontology conference, schweitzer presented preliminary evidence that she has detected real dinosaur proteins in her specimens. scientists have done studies which suggest that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but those dates were not arrived at by use of carbon-14 dating methods. there are plenty of dinosaur bones out there that could be tested for c-14—one would hope that other researchers will take up the challenge and perform similar analyses to these researchers. if young organic material became mixed with the dinosaur material that was carbon-14 dated, then the younger material would skew the result to a younger age. would like to add to joe taylor's report of our cooperative research in excavation, collecting of dinosaur and other fossil specimens for testing for c-14 content. we have also used isochron dating to test for contamination and/or how well the rocks acted as closed systems. furthermore, it appears less than certain that the carbon found in the bones actually had anything to do with them being dinosaur bones. we don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist thomas holtz jr. dating methods radiometric dating isn't the only method of determining the age of rocks. my understanding, this research may have far greater implications for biblical creationists than the finding of soft tissue on dinosaur bones. understand her dinosaur bone, schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus. public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth. in the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones.My ex is dating again and it hurts

Radiocarbon Dating of Dinosaur Fossils | TASC

. mainstream accepted date for the age of these bones (several dozens of million years old). there are other dating methods, making use of materials with even longer half-lives, such as the potassium=argon method, which have been used in dating dinosaurs. so if dinosaur bones are supposedly 65+ million years old, why is this?) actual age determination of dinosaurs, his method is simply the wrong tool for the job. preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method.,4 each of the two thousand meeting participants was given a disc which included the abstract of the carbon-14 dating report. the dinosaur dates reported below and discussed in the aogs 2012 paper discussed throughout this article, included triceratops, hadrosaur, allosaurus, and acrocanthasaurs., you might ask, why is this article about carbon-14 dating of dinosaurs? 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. it shows that objects of known age via independent methods and recordings are corroborated by carbon dating. one point that is worth noticing is that these dinosaur ages are all much younger than the conventional ones. them is organic carbon derived from the original dinosaur bone. "comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant c-14 results which were well below the upper limits of c-14 dating. over the next three summers, workers chipped away at the dinosaur, gradually removing it from the cliff face., schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. soft tissue should not last 65 million years, yet it has been found in a dinosaur fossil which “has” to be at least that old.

C-14 Dating of Dinosaur Bone Collagen

femur of an upper creataceous hell creek formation triceratops-like dinosaur (perhaps a new type of ceratopsid) found in 2007 was carbon-14 dated by the university of georgia using accelerator mass spectrometry and found to be 39,230 ± 140 years old. miller and others authored a paper detailing the results of carbon-14 dating of dinosaur fossils which was presented at the western geophysics meeting in singapore, august 2012. on the hollow inside surface of the femur, schweitzer had found scraps of bone that gave a surprising amount of information about the dinosaur that made them. research on dinosaur chronology is very important as it demonstrates why soft tissue has survived – the bones of dinosaurs are 2000 times younger then what the science community has accepted as a fact., 11 december 2012, dna and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, and the list of related articles at the bottom of that article. 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 were taken from were determined to be 99+ million years old, as shown in this paper by kowallis et al. articlesdiamonds: a creationist’s best friendgeological conflictfurther reading‘young’ age of the earth & universe q&adinosaur questions and answersrelated mediahow smart was ancient man? am curious if the c14 could be present in the dino bones from microorganisms, which have come in contact with the bone sometime after dinosaur died. the source linked above:Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique." this is well known in science, the dating process using carbon has limitations and to see someone use this, as a smoking gun or something similar. a paper published in science last june presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragments—just what schweitzer needed for her micro-scale explorations. instead, schweitzer has been testing her dinosaur tissue samples for proteins, which are a bit hardier and more readily distinguished from contaminants. can learn more about fossils, dinosaurs, radiometric dating and related topics by reading through the links on the next page. if particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization. did this, since there would have been a slim chance (at best) of the museum curator providing them with any dinosaur bone fragments if he or she had known what the true intent of the supposed chemists was.


C14 dating of dinosaur bones

Apologetics Press - Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating

in a similar manner, the more evidence of young ages for dinosaur fossils, the more compelling the evidence (in total) becomes. that included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. rescinding the abstract, the aogs has made the unscientific decision that c-14 cannot exist in dinosaur bones simply because of their presumed age, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. if the accepted ages of millions of years for dinosaurs were to be found to be in error, this would be a problem to evolution. 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. both the carbon-14 dating results and the discovery of soft tissue in incompletely fossilized dinosaur bones share the common theme of being indicators of much younger ages for dinosaurs than evolution claims. 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. if all dinosaur bones contain radio carbon, then this indicates that all dinosaur bones are young and that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago. what research is being done to correct such an obvious dating flaw? pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. so, i would think it would be possible that dinosaurs could have similar microorganisms that lived inside their cells, which continued to live on after the actual dinosaur died, and then showed up in c14 dating. fortunately, further c14 dating of dino specimens (with every base covered re alleged contamination with modern carbon) is in the wings and we will see what emerges over the next few years. the numbers go from 4 to 6, omitting 5, which was the one on 14c in dino bones. yet the widely documented evidence of preserved biomolecules in dinosaur bones and other presumably ancient fossils strongly suggests that c-14 should be present as well. many of those opinions were arrived at after using more than one dating method. 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. Sagmeister and walsh 40 days of dating

is one other pertinent point to be made about carbon-14 dating, however. she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. 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. acrocanthosaurus (carnivorous dinosaur) specimen was excavated in 1984 near glen rose, texas and was tested in 2010 by the university of georgia. they then sent it to a laboratory run by the university of arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out. hell creek formation dinosaur, found in 2004, a triceratops, was dated by the university of georgia by accelerator mass spectrometry in 2009 as 24,340 ± 70 years old. the basic ideas of bracketing and radiometric dating, researchers have determined the age of rock layers all over the world. this would certainly be in the interests of scientific truth—especially following the repeated findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and now even seemingly irrefutable dna in dinosaur specimens. most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. effects of radioactive decay in carbon dating2why didn't accelerator mass spectrometry greatly improve the accuracy of carbon dating? if dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of c-14 left in them. inside the dinosaur vessels are things schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.’ve been waiting for this, more radio carbon dating of dinosaur bones & i understand there’s more on the way. bones may seem as steady as stone, but they’re actually constantly in flux. paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives., all the comments on this thread and in the article and footnotes about potential 'contamination' refer primarily to micro-organisms, the main potential for such contamination (this point was made concerning the c14 dating of diamonds, that the gaps in the lattice do not allow penetration by such creatures). Free irish internet dating sites