Carbon dating methods and fossils of dinosaurs


carbon dating methods and fossils of dinosaurs

Our research at the paleo group shows that the age determing method is in error. We have carbon dated dinosaur bones from all over the world and they all. Other radioactive dating methods such as potassium/argon (K/Ar), . matter have young carbon 14 dates, and also that a significant number of dinosaur fossils. Carbon 14 in Dinosaurs at the American Geophysical Conference in fossil wood, coal, oil, graphite, marble, the ten dinosaurs described above, and even in . Sixth: The inventor of the radiocarbon dating method, Dr. Walter Libby, stated in.

Robert Service wrote in Science: We can slow it down, but not by a lot. This shows that there are many such finds of protein in fossil specimens, and also that experts in the field have trouble seeing how proteins could survive in bone for millions of years.

How we date dinosaur bones - Rosie Research

Here are more quotations from the Science article referenced above: Schroeter even went so far as to break down the mass spectrometer piece by piece, soak the whole thing in methanol to remove any possible contaminants, and reassemble the machine.

Just how those collagen sequences survived for tens of millions of years is not clear.

carbon dating methods and fossils of dinosaurs

Amino Acid Dating There is another dating method based on the orientation of amino acids, whether they spiral to the right D or to the left L: When an organism dies, control over the configuration of the amino acids ceases, and the ratio of D to L moves from a value near 0 towards an equilibrium value near 1, a process called racemization.

Thus, measuring the ratio of D to L in a sample enables one to estimate how long ago the specimen died. This dating method is considered to be accurate for ages up to several hundred thousand years. It is calibrated by C14 dating, and the ages given by the two methods are in close agreement after such calibration. A chart of the ratio of D to L for samples of various radiocarbon ages shows that even for samples dated to 30, or 40, years, the ratio of D to L is significantly less than one.

This is additional evidence that these bones are not millions of years old. At any rate, it would be interesting to determine the D to L ratio for the proteins found in dinosaur bones. Another interesting fact about amino acid dating is that the transformation of L to D forms seems to occur more and more slowly the older the sample is: Many fossils have been dated both by racemization and by C14 dating. The conventional time scale assumes that racemization occurs slower and slower as we go back in time.

If we assume that racemization occurs at a constant rate, which is a reasonable assumption, then we get a time scale that is more compressed even than the C14 time scale.

Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated?

This would imply that any date within 50, years by C14 dating is really at most 18, years, and even any date within a million years by conventional dating is really at most 18, years. This would imply that the dinosaur bones are also at most 18, years old!

carbon dating methods and fossils of dinosaurs

One response of evolutionary scientists to the relatively young C14 dates is to say that they are due to contamination of the bones by modern carbon, having a higher proportion of C But other times they accept C14 ages in the range of 20, to 40, years as valid. Also, as mentioned earlier, extraordinary methods were used to eliminate all possible contamination when measuring the C14 in these supposedly ancient bones.

In addition, the preservation of soft tissue together with bone has implications for the possible contamination of the dinosaur bones. Preservation of Bone and Soft Tissue Based on current tests, it appears that many and perhaps all fossils with organic matter have young carbon 14 dates, and also that a significant number of dinosaur fossils have soft tissue. Thus many dinosaur bones with soft tissue should be typically found in similar environments as dinosaur bones with young C14 dates.

However, it turns out that an environment that can preserve both bones and soft tissue has to be dry. If such dinosaur bones with soft tissue had been wet for a significant length of time, bacteria would have consumed the remaining proteins and there would be no soft tissue left.

This is how nutrients are made available to plants. But Mary Schweitzer has shown that the proteins are still there in the dinosaur bones. Thus these bones must have been dry since their burial.

If this is so, then how could they be contaminated? Contamination would have to come through water flowing through the bones. However, under such acidic conditions, bone is rapidly dissolved. Because the soft tissues and bones are still intact, they must have been kept very dry since their burial. Perhaps a highly basic environment would inhibit bacterial growth and permit soft tissue to be preserved. But a basic environment breaks down organic matter and soft tissue: It may attack a great variety of materials, including metals and various organic compounds, but people are mostly concerned with its effects on living tissue: Concentrated or strong bases are caustic on organic matter and react violently with acidic substances.

The definition of caustic is: A strongly alkaline environment would destroy tissue because it is caustic. So if there is some wet environment permitting both bone and soft tissue to be preserved for millions of years, it must be highly unusual. It seems that it could not be highly acidic, highly basic, or neutral.

So such an environment could not explain how fossil remains from all through the fossil record could contain significant amounts of C14, dating to about 40, years or less because most of them would not be in such an unusual environment, if it could even exist.

Carbon 14 and Dinosaur Bones |

But if the environment were dry, then the bones could not be contaminated. Now, could air bring contamination to these bones? Air would bring moisture, which again would enable the growth of bacteria. Dry air would contain carbon dioxide, but this is a highly stable molecule and would not transfer carbon to the bone without an input of energy from somewhere.

In any event, such contamination would be on the surface and would be omitted by thorough cleaning methods.

carbon dating methods and fossils of dinosaurs

Necessary Quantity of Contamination Now, how much contamination would there have to be if the dinosaur bones were really of infinite C14 age as the scientists claim?

Suppose X parts of carbon were original and Y parts were contamination. This means that nearly one percent of the carbon would have to be contamination. If, however, there are too many or too few neutrons, the atom is unstable, and it sheds particles until its nucleus reaches a stable state. Think of the nucleus as a pyramid of building blocks. If you try to add extra blocks to the sides pyramid, they may stay put for a while, but they'll eventually fall away.

  • Carbon 14 Dating of Fossils
  • How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?
  • Considering Contamination

The same is true if you take a block away from one of the pyramid's sides, making the rest unstable. Eventually, some of the blocks can fall away, leaving a smaller, more stable structure. The result is like a radioactive clock that ticks away as unstable isotopes decay into stable ones.

You can't predict when a specific unstable atom, or parent, will decay into a stable atom, or daughter.

How we date dinosaur bones

But you can predict how long it will take a large group of atoms to decay. Thus, where researchers find both soft tissue and 14c, especially in small bones as with the mosasaurthe claim that the biological tissue is dinosaurian and is not contamination works exactly against the claim that the 14c is from contamination.

The inventor of the radiocarbon dating method, Dr. Walter Libby, stated in the journal Science, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen may be altered to yield a false age. Here's our RSR explanation of why this is. Because new carbon atoms will not replace original carbon atoms in the collagen molecule.

As a result of decomposition, to the extent that original carbon atoms were falling out of the tissue so to speakthen to that extent you would no longer have collagen; rather, to that extent you would have humic acid.

Decomposing collagen cannot be "repaired" by free carbon atoms happening upon the decomposition. Rather, the collagen must be manufactured within a living animal with its constituent carbon atoms into a " super-super-coil In addition to work already done documenting appreciable 14c levels even in contamination-resistant specimens, we recommend a few experiments including a couple proposed by RSR friend David Willis: The young earth model predicts the finding of significant quantities of carbon 14 throughout the bone.

The evolutionary model would predict no modern carbon in such a bone, but as a secondary assumption, if 14c is found, since any contaminating material would have to pass through the outer layers of the bone to get into the center, the contamination explanation would expect to measure generally decreasing percentages of 14c from the outside to the center of each individual bone. 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. 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.

Hear Bob's interview with Steve. Also, 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. 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.