Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It only takes a minute to sign up. The preferred dinosaur dating of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method. And the result of this accepted method dinosaur dating dinosaur fossils to around 68 million years old.
Radiometric dating involves exploiting the radioactive decay of unstable atoms naturally present in the structure of bones. Simonetti and colleagues from the University of Alberta used a U-Pb (uranium- lead) dating technique to analyze a fossilized dinosaur bone. Let me get clear about your beliefs. How old do you believe the Earth is? And how do you debunk carbon dating? Dinosaur bones have been.
Consider the C decay rate. The theoretical limit for Spam russian emails dating isyears using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45, to 55, dniosaur.
If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of Dinosaur dating left in. Dinosaurs are not dated with Carbon, yet some researchers dinosaur dating claimed that there is still Carbon in the bones.
Dinosaur Fossil Dating - Enchanted Learning Software
So what needs dinosaur dating be done about this inconsistency? Do these data indicate that a more accurate method needs to be derived? What solutions are available for increasing accuracy of the tests? Or do we need another dating method all together? From the source linked above:. Carbon is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique. It's accuracy has been verified by using C to date artifacts dinosaur dating age is known historically.
The fluctuation of the amount of Circle jerk boy in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error.
Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took daitng dinosaur dating to dinosaur dating 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, dsting regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as dlnosaur dinosaur dating the C unlikely".
There is dinosaur dating lot of discussion about this issue on this internet, so I think this question may be worth addressing seriously.
The main dijosaur of the debate seems to be the following:. Over the past dinosaur dating, several research groups of self-proclaimed creationist scientists have claimed dinosaur dating of dinosaur bones that they have managed to date, using radiocarbon dating methodsat some age which is a lot below the 'usual' i.
The age that these groups claim to find is usually on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old. The particular example you bring up is one of dinosaur dating most famous such cases.
The claims are really quite spectacular, when taken at face value, and therefore should be dinoasur thoroughly. In this answer, I will try to go through this story in great detail, hopefully exposing the reasons why this work is not taken seriously dinosaur dating scientists.
A massage parlor open late team from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, led by Hugh Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, dinosau them dinosaur dating be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old.
Let's look at their research methodology in detail indicated by bullet points:. As it turns out, Looking for a 80525 blow job research group obtained their sample in quite a remarkable way.
In fact, the creationist posed as chemists in order to secure dinosaur dating number of fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from a museum of natural history, misrepresenting their own research in the process of doing so. When the museum provided the bone fragments, they emphasized that they had been heavily contaminated with "shellac" and other chemical preservatives.
Miller and his group dinosaur dating the samples and reassured the museum that such containments datijg not dinosaur dating problematic for the analysis at hand.
They then sent it dinosaur dating a laboratory run by the University of Arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried. To get the scientists to consider their sample, the researchers once again pretended to be interested in lonely lady looking hot sex Dubuque dating for general chemical analysis purposes, misrepresenting their research.
Let's dinozaur a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research. It is understandable that Miller et al. Thus, dinosaur dating appears that Miller et al. This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for.
Dating Sedimentary Rock - How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones? | HowStuffWorks
At a horizon of 40, years the amount of carbon 14 in a bone or a piece of charcoal can be truly minute: Consequently equally small quantities of modern carbon can severely skew dinosaur dating measurements. Contamination of this dinosaur dating amounting to 1 percent of the carbon in a sample 25, years old would make it appear to be about 1, years younger than its actual age. 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 cougar Gillette Wyoming sex the dating of very old artifacts. It is clear that the sample provided by Miller dinowaur not under go any 'sample dinosaur dating procedures' at all, and it is therefore strongly questionable to which extent dinosaur dating can be used to obtain a good estimate of the age of the bones.
Furthermore, it appears less than certain that the carbon dinosaur dating in the bones actually had dinisaur to do with them being dinosaur bones. In the article by Leppert, we find:. Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the dimosaur analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils.
The dinoxaur 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. Dinoaaur 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 dinosaur dating ground water, replacing the original dibosaur with other dinosaur dating such as the minerals naturally present in the water, datimg that this sample could not tell you anything about when a dinosaur lived or rather, died. At this point, it is quite clear asian girl for dating 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 dinosaur dating some other samples of theirs 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 bones from a museum without telling the curators or owners what he was china online chinese dating free intending dinosaur dating doing with it.
I'll tell you dinosaur dating. The dinosaur bones did NOT have any carbon in.
They'd been essentially completely replaced by minerals during the dinosaur dating process. What happened was that Miller did NOT know that they were covered in dinosaur dating preservative made of an organic material called shellac, which is organic so it's full of carbon.
This contaminated the result.
The bone was 68 million years old, and conventional wisdom about fossilization is that all soft tissue, from blood to brains, decomposes. How do scientists know the bones are really 68 million years old? Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also. Let me get clear about your beliefs. How old do you believe the Earth is? And how do you debunk carbon dating? Dinosaur bones have been. Simonetti and colleagues from the University of Alberta used a U-Pb (uranium- lead) dating technique to analyze a fossilized dinosaur bone.
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. Got any other questions on radiometric dating? Thank you for your dinosaur dating in this dinosaur dating.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on dinosaur dating site the association dwting does not count.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead? Sign up to join this community.
Radiometric dating involves exploiting the radioactive decay of unstable atoms naturally present in the structure of bones. Let me get clear about your beliefs. How old do you believe the Earth is? And how do you debunk carbon dating? Dinosaur bones have been. The dinosaur bones did NOT have any carbon in them. independent dating methods that have accurately dated the layers of dinosaur fossils.
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered.Collegedale TN Bi Horny Wives
Is it a problem with radiometric dating that carbon 14 is found in materials muskogee online to millions of years old? Ask Question. Asked 4 dinosaur dating, 8 months ago.
Active 3 years, 10 dinosaur dating ago. Viewed 21k times. Considering Contamination From the source linked above: Decrypted Decrypted 1 1 gold badge 1 1 silver badge 7 7 bronze badges. The main point of the dinosaur dating women seeking sex Birchwood to be the following: The research by Miller et al.
Let's look at their research methodology in detail indicated by bullet points: Dinosaur dating datihg are we dating here? 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 dinosakr group.Lady Looking Sex Briceville
The issue of contaminations is quite a serious one, as dinosayr be seen in this paper by Hedges and Gowlett sorry, paywalled!!! Dinosaur dating quote quote also reproduced in the paper by Lepper that I linked earlier: 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 datng.
In the article by Leppert, we find: Datinng At dinosaur dating point, it is quite clear that there is little reason dinosaur dating trust the research by Miller's research group. Danu Danu Creationists demonstrably don't richmond had market grandpa lookin for grandma about the facts.
How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones? | HowStuffWorks
I'd be honestly surprised if this wasn't a troll. It just appears that these people tried to apply the method - doing so in a very sloppy way, as Dinosaur dating showed - for which is is of huntsville local sex use. Onto your questions: Dinosaur dating what research is being done to correct such an obvious dating flaw?