All can dinosaurs carbon dating congratulate, you were
Posted in Dating
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.
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. 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 parentwill decay into a stable atom, or daughter.
But you can predict how long it will take a large group of atoms to decay. The element's half-life is the amount of time it takes for half the parent atoms in a sample to become daughters.
How to Make Elephant Toothpaste. Triceratops 2, a very large ceratopsid-type dinosaur excavated in in Cretaceous clay at 47 02 44N and 32 49W in Montana by the O. Kline team of Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum. Outer bone fragments of a femur were tested for C Hadrosaur 3, a duck billed dinosaur. Scrapings were taken from a large bone excavated by Joe Taylor of Mt. Apatosaur, a sauropod. Scrapings were taken from a rib still imbedded in the clay soil of a ranch in CO, partially excavated in an in Ma late Jurassic strata by C.
Baugh and B. 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.
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. Libby, the discoverer of Radiocarbon dating and Nobel Prize winner, showed that purified collagen could not give erroneous ages. Others should attempt to replicate these results, as two researchers did in Data from page of: Thomas, Brian, Vance Nelson.
Spring Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.
Dating Sedimentary Rock
Watch a video of the conference presentation. See the conference schedule for presentation of abstract BGA at On the conference website, the abstract was removed from position number 5. Banned by the Center for Applied Isotope Studies. From through the Paleochronology group had 11 dinosaur bone samples carbon dated by the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia, and for good reason.
Senior research scientist Alexander Cherkinsky specializes in the preparation of samples for Carbon testing. He directed the pretreatment and processing of the dinosaur bone samples with the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, though he did not know the bones were from dinosaurs, and he signed the reports.
Carbon dating at this facility is certainly the very best. But insomeone told the director of the facility, Jeff Speakman, that the Paleochronology group was showing the Carbon reports on a website and YouTube and drawing the obvious conclusions. So when he received another bone sample from the Paleochronology group, he returned it to sender and sent an email saying: "I have recently become aware of the work that you and your team have been conducting with respect to radiocarbon dating of bone.
The scientists at CAIS and I are dismayed by the claims that you and your team have made with respect to the age of the Earth and the validity of biological evolution.
Consequently, we are no longer able to provide radiocarbon services in support of your anti-scientific agenda. I have instructed the Radiocarbon Laboratory to return your recent samples to you and to not accept any future samples for analysis. Notice that he did not say the radiocarbon reports of the dinosaur bone samples were inaccurate. No, his objection was that the Paleochronology group was using the reports as evidence that dinosaurs lived thousands, not millions, of years ago.
So I asked him 3 times over 3 weeks what is the right conclusion to draw from the test results they provided us; then I asked his entire scientific staff. None of them had an answer. This is an attitude we have encountered among members of academia: there is an established truth, and all evidence contrary to it is rejected. A nyone who challenges the established truth is made an enemy. The threat hangs over everyone. A manager of a commercial laboratory that does Carbon dating, Beta Analytic Inc.
Her interest led us to propose that her company perform a Carbon test on a T-rex bone we acquired. She wrote back:. Thanks for considering our service in this project.
We wish you well in your research but must choose to opt-out of the analysis. Since you have identified it as T-rex, and these are known to be extinct for 50 million years, it is beyond the limit of our dating.
If a "recent" result was derived it would be universally challenged with possible risks of poor result claims for our laboratory.
This is a project much better suited for collaboration with a university laboratory. It has demonstrated both the technical competency and management system requirements necessary to consistently deliver technically valid test results. These standards are universally recognized as the highest level of quality attainable by a testing laboratory. Mark Armitage and the triceratops horn. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in a Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica.
The university claimed his appointment at had been temporary and claimed a lack of funding for the position. This was news to him, and contradicted prior statements and documents from the university. Mark Armitage has a MS degree in biology and has been a microscope scientist microscopist for 30 years. He was the president of the Southern California Society for Microscopy for several years. He has some 30 publications to his credit.
Mark's micrographs have appeared on the covers of eleven scientific journals, and he has many technical publications on microscopic phenomena in such journals as American Laboratory, Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin, Parasitology Research, Microscopy and Microanalysis, Microscopy Today and Acta Histochemica, among others. According to papers filed with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, when Mark Armitage interviewed for an opening at CSUN for a "regular" "part-time" microscopist in he told the panel that he had published materials supportive of creationism.
William Krohmer, Manager of Technical Services and Safety, who would be Armitage's direct supervisor, was on the panel. The panel hired Armitage despite his creationist writings because of his exceptional qualifications. The position was Electron Microscopy Technician in the Department of Biology, working two ten-hour days per week.
He was "permanent part-time" and was allowed to enroll in the full benefits package of the university. He ran the Microscopy Imaging Facility with its three electron microscopes, personally training students and faculty on their proper use. He was often praised for his work and accomplishments. The Biology Department bought a new confocal microscope that used high-powered lasers for imaging and was computer-driven. Armitage supervised the installation of the new microscope.
He was assigned to be the only instructor on it, with responsibility for control and supervision of the instrument. In Februaryhe was asked to teach a full graduate course in Biological Imaging for the Biology Department. In MarchDr. Steven B. Oppenheimer sent an email to staff saying that the two days per week that Armitage was working needed to be expanded in order to facilitate the growing demands of the microscopy lab.
In JuneDr. Ernest Kwok was made chairman of the committee overseeing the microscopy lab, and became Armitage's new supervisor. In the summer ofArmitage responded to an invitation to participate in a search for dinosaur fossils in Glendive, Montana in the famous Hell Creek formation. He found the brow-horn of a triceratops; it was not petrified. Studying the horn at the CSUN lab, he discovered soft tissue in the supposedly million-year-old or more fossil. While teaching students how to use microscopes in the lab that he directed at CSUN, Armitage engaged them in brief socratic dialogue about the possible age of the horn.
One of Dr. Kwok's students was stunned by the discovery and implications of soft tissue in the triceratops horn, and told Dr.
Kwok about it. On June 12,Dr. Kwok stormed into Armitage's lab and shouted, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department! Armitage reported this to the Biology Department chair, Dr.
They both played down the event and told Armitage to forget it. Praise for Armitage's work continued from distinguished members of the Biology Department. In Novembera photo of the soft tissue in the triceratops horn was published on the cover of American Laboratory magazine. The former chair of the Biology Department, Dr. Oppenheimer, wrote a ringing endorsement of Armitage in a letter of recommendation.
On February 12,the journal Acta Histochemica published a paper by Armitage describing the discovery of soft tissue in the triceratops horn. Acta Histochemica is a peer-reviewed journal of structural biochemistry of cells and tissue that welcomes advanced microscopical imaging; it has been publishing since On the day the paper was published, Dr.
Kwok called a secret meeting of the committee overseeing the microscopy lab. Armitage had served on the committee for three years, but he was not invited. The committee decided to terminate Armitage.
On February 19,William Krohmer told Armitage that there was a "witch hunt" being mounted against him, and advised him to resign. When he refused to resign, Krohmer told him he would be terminated. Armitage was fired on February 27, He was told that his job had only been a "temporary appointment". There is a sidenote to this story.
Hugh Miller, head of the Paleochronology group, obtained a bone sample from the triceratops horn Mark Armitage discovered. As you can see, the bone was dated by them to 33, years before present. 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.
All plants and animals have a regular intake of carbon while they are alive. When an animal or plant dies, it no longer takes in carbon of any form. C has a half-life of years. The maximum theoretical detection limit is aboutyears, but radiocarbon dating is only reliable up to 55, years with the best equipment. Older dates are considered to be tentative. If, as generally believed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be one atom of Carbon left in their bones.
The accuracy of carbon dates depends on whether the ratio of Carbon to Carbon was the same in the past as it is today.
Dinosaurs carbon dating
There are two types of C dating technologies. The original one, counting Beta decay particles, is a multistep process and requires sample sizes of several grams. Beta counting is prone to possible errors in each of the many phases. AMS uses a much smaller sample size, and actually counts the Carbon atoms as they are separated from the sample. The equipment accelerates streams of charged atomic particles to high velocities in order to sort and analyze them.
Carbon dating of bone is one of the most difficult tasks in carbon dating, and requires the most care of any carbonaceous material. This is mainly due to the nature of bone, which is a very porous material.
Dinosaurs carbon dating Terran February 11, Request on carbon 14 and then. Although carbon dating and it decays away. These are most paleontologists, also known as others have long been alive in carbon 14 in texas, like carbon. Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Dinosaurs are not dated with Carbon, yet some researchers have claimed that there is still Carbon in the bones. Carbon dating is very accurate. 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.
Certain parts of bone look like a sponge under the microscope. Many dinosaur bones are hard as rock because the original material has been replaced with a silicon material such as quartz. These are "mineralized" or "fossilized".
Dr. Kent Hovind - Carbon Dating Dinosaur Bones. 7-7-17
We have found un-mineralized dinosaur bones. We then scrape the outer surface off to get rid of surface contamination, and date the inner remaining material. One can date just the purified bioapatite, the total organics, or the collagen, or a combination of these, as we did in several cases.
This is a remarkable find because collagen, being a soft tissue present in most animals, is supposed to decay in a few thousand years. Collagen is the main protein found in connective tissue of animals. 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.
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.
Dinosaurs carbon dating
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?
Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1) Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a . Jan 02, Dinosaur bones have been dated, based on the half life of certain elements, at millions of years. Actually, most dates for dinosaurs are done by geological column dating. Scientists see what depth the bones were found, and translate it Author: Bodie Hodge. Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes. These are chemical elements, like carbon or uranium, that are identical except for one key feature - the number of neutrons in their countryconnectionsqatar.com: Tracy V. Wilson.
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. Danu Danu
I can believe to you :)19.01.2020|Reply