Saber-tooth Kittens Were Big-boned. Dating Sedimentary Rock. They did not like the test results, so they censored them.
The year was impressive with its More Creation Science Update. Bee Brains Aren't Pea Brains. Inbiologists were stunned to discover that humans might not all look the same to honeybees.ASEXUAL DATING SITES AUSTRALIA
A study has found that bees can learn to recognize human Triassic Tumor Raises Creation Questions. German researchers described rare bone cancer in a Triassic reptile fossil found in limestone near Velberg, Germany. The find reignites conversations Sixtymile Formation Part of Genesis Flood.
For many decades, creation scientists have included the Sixtymile Formation in Grand Canyon as marine dating website of the Sauk Megasequence that marks the onset of The Latest. Steve Turpin, O. You might recall that viruses act as miniscule infectious agents.
They forcibly enter a cell and conquer its molecular machinery. The cell is instructed, Creation-based thinking made a testable prediction.
Thomas Kaye presented convincing evidence that some of the flexible material he extracted from fossil dinosaur or turtle remains was biofilm. He also found that little red objects which initially looked like red blood cells in blood vessels were actually microclusters of iron oxide. That scientists are unable at present to give a complete account of the mechanism and trajectory of the preservation of modified proteins in the dinosaur bone pores is not some unique, embarrassing case.
This situation arises constantly in the course of scientific discovery. But when genuine science is brought to bear on these issues, they are eventually readily explained within the framework of an old earth and accepted physics. It may take some years, however, to come to a satisfactory resolution.
A number of these supposed evidences for a young earth are exposed here. The absence of long, sequenceable chains of DNA in any dinosaur fossils indicates that these fossils are much older than the year age allowable in young earth creationism. The same held true for sequences of proteins. This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed. Carbon 14 carbon dating dinosaur bones Dinosaur bones Open Forum. Such contamination would, however, reduce the apparent age of a 60,year-old object by almost 50 percent.
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.
Furthermore, it appears less than certain that the carbon found in the bones actually had anything to do with them being dinosaur 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.
The predominant suite of elements present and their relative percentages including the 3. 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 carbon dating dinosaur bones or rather, carbon dating dinosaur bones, 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 carbon dating dinosaur bones were datedbut 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 carbon dating dinosaur bones from a museum without telling the curators or owners what he was actually intending on doing with it.
‘Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones less than 40,000 years old’ report scrapped from conference website
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.PROBLEMS WITH FIND MY FRIENDS APP
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? Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer carbon dating dinosaur bones requires 10 reputation on this site the association bonus does not count.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead? Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered.Triceratops bone carbon-dated to just 30,000 years old?
Is it a problem with radiometric dating that carbon 14 is found in materials dated to millions of years old? Ask Question. Asked 4 years, 7 months ago. Active 3 years, 8 months ago. Viewed 20k times. Considering Contamination From the source linked above : Carbon is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.
Decrypted Decrypted 1 1 gold badge 1 1 silver badge 7 7 bronze badges. The main carbon dating dinosaur bones 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.