Dino Dating Conflicts: Carbon dating suggests less than 40,000 years old.

A 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. Although the fossils were geologically dated to be over 65 million years old (Cretacious-Jurassic age), C14 dating showed they were less than 40,000 years old.

Something is not right here. There cannot be that much difference between the Geological date, and the Radiocarbon date. After millions of years of being buried, there should be no Carbon 14 left.

The following is the abstract and results C14 dating:

(a)

Acro (Acrocanthosaurus) is a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1984 near Glen Rose TX by C. Baugh and G. Detwiler; in 108 MA Cretaceous sandstone – identified by Dr. W. Langston of Un. of TX at Austin.

Allosaurus is a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1989 by the J. Hall, A. Murray team. It was found under an Apatosaurus skeleton in the Wildwood section of a ranch west of Grand Junction CO in 150 Ma (late Jurassic) sandstone of the Morrison formation.

Hadrosaur #1, a duck billed dinosaur. Bone fragments were excavated in 1994 along Colville River by G. Detwiler, J. Whitmore team in the famous Liscomb bone bed of the Alaskan North Slope – validated by Dr. J. Whitmore.

Hadrosaur #2, a duck billed dinosaur. A lone femur bone was excavated in 2004 in clay in the NW ¼, NE ¼ of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana by the O. Kline team of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum. It was sawed open by the O. Kline, H. Miller team in 2005 to retrieve samples for C-14 testing.

Triceratops #1, a ceratopsid dinosaur. A lone femur bone was excavated in 2004 in Cretaceous clay at 47º 6’ 18” by 104º 39’ 22” Montana by the O. Kline team of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum. It was sawed open by the O. Kline, H. Miller team in 2005 to retrieve samples for C-14 testing.

Triceratops #2, a very large ceratopsid-type dinosaur excavated in 2007 in Cretaceous clay at 47' 02" 44N and 104' 32" 49W by the O. Kline team of Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum. Outer bone fragments of a femur were tested for C-14.

Hadrosaur #3, a duck billed dinosaur. Scrapings were taken from a large bone excavated by Joe Taylor of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, Crosbyton TX in Colorado in Cretaceous strata.

Apatosaur, a sauropod. Scrapings were taken from a rib still imbedded in the clay soil of a ranch in CO, partially excavated in 2007 and 2009, in 150 Ma (late Jurassic) strata by C. Baugh and B. Dunkel.

(b)

GX is Geochron Labs, Cambridge MA, USA; AA is University of Arizona, Tuscon AZ, USA; UG is University of Georgia, Athens GA, USA; KIA is Christian Albrechts Universität, Kiel Germany.

(c)

AMS is Accelerated Mass Spectrometry; Beta is the conventional method of counting Beta decay particles.

(d)

Bio is the carbonate fraction of bioapatite. Bow is the bulk organic fraction of whole bone; Col is collagen fraction; w or ext is charred, exterior or whole bone fragments; Hum is humic acids.

Bioapatite is a major component of the mineralised part of bones. It incorporates a small amount of carbonate as a substitute for phosphate in the crystal lattice.

Charred bone is the description given by lab personnel for blackened bone surfaces.

Collagen: Proteins that are the main component of connective tissue. It can be as high as 20% in normal bone but decomposes over time so that there should be none after ~100,000 years. Yet it is found in four-foot long, nine-inch diameter dinosaur femur bones claimed to be greater than 65 million years old. The “Modified Longin Method” is the normal purification method for bone collagen. Dr. Libby, the discoverer of Radiocarbon dating and Nobel Prize winner, showed that purified collagen could not give erroneous ages.

But there are idiots here who claim there are no mistakes in science, and everything has been proven as FACT..... already.

Discrepancy in science.

You don't say....

I do have to say it's kind of comical that 40,000 is a lot closer to 6,000 that it is to 1 million. Oops.

& one of the links was for Over 40s Dating 

C14 has a half life of only 5730 years. Hence the fraction remaining after 57,300 years is 1/(2^10) = .001 or 0.1%. At that level there is too much random variation for dating to be useful. From high school physics I recall that carbon dating is limited to 60,000 years.

Geological dating, i.e. using the age of rocks and earth layers in which fossils are entombed, is a far more accurate method. Dinosaur bones have been consistently measured at ~65 million or more years.

I have a feeling that this paper was written by folks with an agenda.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/29/new.research.challenges.notion.dinosaur.soft.tissues.still.survive

"You have to go where the science leads, and the science leads me to believe that this is bacterial biofilm."

One must wonder how there could be recent dinosaurs when there is not a hint of them in the years between 65 million years ago and 40,000 years ago.  They suddenly just sprang up?

More likely, the "science" that claims 65 million years ago....  is finally found incorrect.

Next claims will be even more recent than that.

Bookmark this.

the C14 dating in the chart in the OP shows every bone they tested to be under 39,000 years old - I am confused as to why you think a 60,000 year dating limit would be an issue in this case?

if the bones were much older wouldnt the C14 be virtually immeasurable? I dont understand why you think it would measure at a higher level and indicate the bones were younger?

it also says here link that C14 dating can be extended to 100,000 years using accelerator techniques which I believe were used in some of the tests listed in the OP

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

Check out this link:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/29/new.research.challenges.notion.dinosaur.soft.tissues.still.survive

They really SHOULD have dated the bones, not the soft tissue.

Definitely a coincidence since the Word begins with man's creation at around 6.5 thousand years.   The prior "Days" period are unknowns.    Personally, I don't believe in coincidences.  

--
my avatar
Psalm 109:8

Hee hee.  Why the sad face?  It just shows that it's never too late for dating.  Even after you've fossilised 

They did date the bones.  See footnote (a) in my OP.  C14 analysis was performed on bone fragments and scrapings.

The Biofilm your article mentions refers to soft Dinosaur tissue found by Schweitzer.  It's a bit dated though.  Further tests on the 'Biofilm' have revealed that evidence of PHEX and amino acid sequences for actin, tubulin and histone4 which rules out the possibility that the 'biofilm' is of a microbial source.  The findings do support the presence of Osteoclasts, the cells responsible for building bone structure.

See:  http://www.nature.com/news/molecular-analysis-supports-controversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

Hmmm, but you DO believe in fantasy stories - right?

Jericho is the worlds oldest (proven continuously inhabited city)...and that's 11,000 years old.

(quote)

Jericho is described in the Old Testament as the "City of Palm Trees." Copious springs in and around the city attracted human habitation for thousands of years.[8] It is known in Judeo-Christian tradition as the place of the Israelites' return from bondage in Egypt, led by Joshua, the successor to Moses. Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (9000 BCE),[9] almost to the very beginning of the Holocene epoch of the Earth's history.

KEV

--
"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness which created it" - Albert Einstein

Yeah...you and your idiotic story.

C14 has a half-life of 5,730 years.  After 65 million years, there would be nothing left.  In fact, the short half life means C14 dating is a technique with a limit of about 50,000 years or so.  Longer time periods require different methods.

QED.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Does mean that dragons were real then, and not just dinosaur bones.

--
Nothing grows from the top down--- dummy---

thats the whole point - there was C14, left enough of it to put the age of the bones at under 40,000 years well within the range of the half life of C14. If the C14 in the bones were completely gone (as it should have been if they truly were 65 million years old) C14 dating would not have found anything.

the fact that C14 dating doesnt work unless C14 is present actually helps to prove these bones were not older than 50,000 years.

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

No, it's proof of a contaminated sample or a sample that's been altered recently by any number of possible methods.  It could also be that the amount of C14 present was so small that it was indistinguishable from the noise floor by the equipment being used.  It's kind of like the noise in a photographic dark frame - is the noise indicative of light leaking? No, it is not.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

So how did they date it back to 9000BCE?  (Your links don't seem to work.)

Maybe they're not 65+ Million years old.  The conflict remains.  Following the findings the researchers are urging their colleagues to do their own carbon dating of their dinosaur fossils.

so basically you are saying that C14 dating is worthless - even when it finds something is 38000 years old or less?

I thought you trusted science

do you really think that scientists are so untrust worthy that they would use a science like C14 dating that couldnt be trusted and that all 8 samples from completly different locations were some how contaminated and scientists couldnt figure out that something was wrong

If you are correct then that would indicate that science cant be trusted - either that or you are telling us you only trust it when it gives you the answer you want

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55