Carbon dating problem

He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination.

That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants.

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.

These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

There is a lot of discussion about this issue on this internet, so I think this question may be worth addressing seriously.

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.e.

The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method.

And the result of this accepted method dates dinosaur fossils to around 68 million years old. Its half-life ($t_{1/2}$) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away.

Last modified 11-Sep-2015 20:30