C 14 dating dinosaur bones

A relatively new area of controversy is the discovery of soft tissues in dinosaur fossils.

The state of these discoveries changes every few years, so some of the standard science web sites have not kept up.

This update isn’t about the lawsuit; I have no knowledge of how that is going. Since the current half-life of carbon-14 is “only” about 5,700 years, there should be no detectable levels of it in the original parts of the fossil, if the fossil is millions of years old. Cherkinsky’s lab found very detectable levels of carbon-14.

c 14 dating dinosaur bones-49c 14 dating dinosaur bones-38c 14 dating dinosaur bones-14

Please note that “diagenetic carbonates” refer to contaminants that occur during the fossilization process. Since the lab specifically reported a date for the fossil’s bioapatite, I have to assume that the investigators who actually did the preparation and dating think they were dating the fossil’s original bioapatite, not a mixture of bone and contaminants. However, I think it adds to the case that the bone is not millions of years old.

ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all.

Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years.

The lead presenter was Dr Thomas Seiler, a German physicist whose Ph D is from the Technical University of Munich.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!