# Can it be a problem with radiometric dating you to definitely carbon 14 is found in material dated to help you countless years of age?

Can it be a problem with radiometric dating you to definitely carbon 14 is found in material dated to help you countless years of age?

The most famous type matchmaking dinosaur fossils is with the fresh new radiometric relationship means. While the consequence of so it accepted approach dates dinosaur fossils so you’re able to up to 68 mil years of age.

However: Consider the C-14 decay rate. Its half-life ( $t_<1/2>$ ) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

Dinosaurs aren’t dated with Carbon-14, yet specific scientists keeps reported that there is nevertheless Carbon dioxide-14 about skeleton.

So what should be done regarding it inconsistency? Carry out these types of study indicate that a more appropriate method needs to be derived? Just what options are available for expanding precision of evaluating? Otherwise do we you would like several other relationship means all together?

## The analysis by the Miller mais aussi al.

A study group throughout the CRSEF, otherwise Creation Search, Science Knowledge Foundation, added because of the Hugh Miller, enjoys said to own dated dinosaur bones having fun with radiocarbon measures, choosing these to getting zero avove the age of numerous those many off years old. Let us check the look methods in more detail (indicated because of the bullet facts):

Since it looks like, Miller’s search classification gotten their sample in the some an extraordinary ways. Actually, the fresh new creationist presented just like the chemists to help you safer lots away from fragments out-of fossilized dinosaur bones regarding a museum out of pure background, misrepresenting their own research undergoing performing this.

If the art gallery offered brand new navicular bone, it emphasized they had already been heavily polluted which have “shellac” and other additives. Miller and his awesome group recognized the newest products and you can confident the art gallery one to including containments wouldn’t be hard for the study during the give. Then they delivered it in order to a research manage of the College or university away from Arizona, in which radiocarbon relationships might possibly be carried out. To obtain the boffins to adopt their shot, the brand new scientists again pretended to-be selecting the fresh new relationship getting general agents analysis objectives, misrepresenting their research.

Let’s take a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research. It is understandable that Miller et al. did this, since there would have been a slim chance (at best) of the museum curator providing them with any dinosaur bone fragments if he or she had known what the true intent of the supposed chemists was. In particular, it is implausible that it would have been considered worthwhile to try to use radiocarbon dating methods on these bones, since the rocks that they were taken from were determined to be 99+ million years old, as shown in this paper by Kowallis et al. Now, it is known that $^<14>\text$ decays at a fast enough rate (half-life

6000 decades) for this relationships approach to feel certainly useless to the such as for instance trials. Hence, it seems that Miller ainsi que al. have no managed to receive so it shot, got it already been honest regarding their intention. So it, needless to say, raises some ethical inquiries, but why don’t we brush this type of aside for the moment. We stick to the examination of the study done by Miller and his fellow experts about CRSEF.

## What exactly are we relationships right here? Try contamination and standard trustworthyness

• After the samples were submitted by the laboratory, Miller et al. were informed by a professor from the University of Arizona that the samples were heavily contaminated, and that no collagen (where most of the carbon for $^<14>\text$ dating comes from) was present. 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:

In the a panorama regarding forty,100000 ages the amount of carbon-14 during the a bone otherwise a piece of charcoal will be really moment: instance a sample will get consist of not all the thousand 14C atoms. Thus equally small amounts of progressive carbon can seriously skew the proportions. Pollution of this kind amounting to a single per cent of your carbon inside the a sample twenty five,100000 years old will make it be seemingly on the step one,five hundred age young than simply its genuine ages. Including pollution perform, but not, slow down the noticeable age a good 60,000-year-old object because of the nearly fifty percent. Clearly best shot decontamination methods try regarding sort of importance on the dating away from very old items

It’s obvious that test provided with Miller did not less than wade any ‘sample decontamination procedures’ anyway, and is ergo firmly dubious that the total amount it will be used to obtain a good imagine of one’s ages of brand new bones. Furthermore, it appears lower than sure if the latest carbon found in the bones actually got almost anything to perform together with them becoming dinosaur bones. Throughout the post by the Leppert, we discover:

Hugh Miller generously gave me a duplicate of your elemental analysis of 1 of their dinosaur fossils. Daniel Fisher of University away from Michigan’s Museum from Paleontology checked-out these types of results and you can finishes there is absolutely nothing whatsoever extraordinary about them. The fresh predominant room off points introduce in addition to their relative rates (such as the step 3.4% carbon dioxide!) are about just what one could anticipate to see in hydroxyapatite and you will calcite, a couple of commonest nutrients found in average dinosaur fossils. Discover absolutely nothing unusual in the this type of fossils no cause to think the fresh new carbon contained in them try organic carbon derived about totally new dinosaur bones.

Robert Kalin elder search expert from the University from Washington’s radiocarbon matchmaking laboratory, performed a standard independent analysis of the specimens recorded because of the Hugh Miller and figured the fresh examples identified as “bones” didn’t have one collagen. These people were, indeed, not bone.

Such show corroborated mainly based paleontological concepts one to demand why these fossiles allegedly were ‘washed away’ over long periods of time by the floor water, replacing the initial skeleton together with other ingredients such as the nutrition obviously found in water, implying this take to couldn’t reveal anything regarding when an effective dinosaur resided (or in other words, died).